The psychology of humor : an integrative approach - Internet ...

The PsychologyofHumor

An Integrative Approach

Rod A. Martin

The "Psychology ofHumor:

Jntegmtive Approach

u

ofjJumor:n Jntegrative

/IpproachROD A. MARTINDepartment of Psychology

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

ELSEVIER

AMSTERDAM BOSTON HEIDELBERG LONDONNEW YORK OXFORD PARIS SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO

Elsevier Academic Press

30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA84 Theobald's Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK

This book is printed on acid-free paper, (oo)

Copyright 2007, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information

storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights

Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333,E-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via

the Elsevier homepage (http://elsevier.com), by selecting "Customer Support" and

then "Obtaining Permissions."

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

APPLICATION SUBMITTED

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 13: 978-0-12-372564-6

ISBN 10: 0-12-372564-X

For all information on all Elsevier Academic Press publicationsvisit our Web site at www.books.elsevier.com

PRINTED IN the United States of America07 08 09 10 987654321

together to growlibraries in developing countries

www.elsevier.com I www.bookaid.org I www.sabre.org

Sabre Foundation

To Myra, who keeps me laughing

FOREWORD xiii

PREFACE xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to the Psychology of Humor 1

The Universality of Humor and Laughter 2

What Is Humor? 5

The Social Context of Humor 5

Cognitive-Perceptual Processes in Humor 6

Emotional Aspects of Humor 7

Laughter as an Expression of the Emotion of Mirth 9

The Many Forms of Humor 10

Jokes 1 1

Spontaneous Conversational Humor 12

Unintentional Humor 14

Psychological Functions of Humor 1 5

Cognitive and Social Functions of the Positive Emotion of Mirth 1 5

vii

CONTENTS

Social Communication and Influence 17

Tension Relief and Coping with Adversity 1 9

A Brief History of Humor 20

Etymology of Humor 20

Changing Views of Laughter 2 1

Wit versus Humor 2 3

Evolution of the Concept of Sense of Humor 24

Humor and Psychology 26

Conclusion 29

CHAPTER 2

Theories and Early Research I: Psychoanalytic and

Superiority Theories 3 1

Psychoanalytic Theory 3 3

Overview of the Theory 3 3

Empirical Investigations 36

Evaluation 41

Superiority/Disparagement Theories 43

Overview of the Theories 44

Implications of Superiority/Disparagement Theories 47


Evaluation 53

CHAPTER 3

Theories and Early Research II: Arousal, Incongruity,and Reversal Theories 57

Arousal Theories 57



Evaluation 62

Incongruity Theories 62



Evaluation 72

Reversal Theory 75

Overview of the Theory 75


Evaluation 80

Conclusion 8 1

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4

The Cognitive Psychology of Humor 83

Humor, Incongruity, and Schemas 85

Schemas, Frames, and Scripts 85

Applications of Schema Theory to Humor 86

Linguistic Approaches to Humor 89

Psychological Approaches to the Study of Schemas in Humor 92

Semantic Distance 92

Semantic Priming Techniques 95

Cognitive Processes in Conversational Humor: Irony and Sarcasm 97

Effects of Humor on Cognition 101

Creativity 101

Memory 103

Computational Approaches to Humor 105

Humor as Cognitive Play 108

Conclusion 110

CHAPTER 5

The Social Psychology of Humor 113

Humor as Social Interaction 114

Interpersonal Functions of Humor 116

Self-Disclosure, Social Probing, and Norm Violation 117

Decommitment 118

Social Norms and Control 119

Status and Hierarchy Maintenance 120

Ingratiation 121

Group Identity and Cohesion 122

Discourse Management 123

Social Play 124

Teasing 124

Social Aspects of Laughter 128

Humor, Social Perception, and Interpersonal Attraction 131

Social Perception 131

Interpersonal Attraction 132

Humor as a Desirable Trait in Friendship and Mate Selection 134

Humor and Persuasion 136

Humor, Attitudes, and Prejudice 139

Humor and Intimate Relationships 143

Humor and Gender 147

Conclusion 150

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6

The Psychobiology of Humor and Laughter 1 53

The Nature of Laughter 1 54

Laughter and Emotion 155

Acoustics of Laughter 156

Laughter Respiration and Phonation 159

Facial Expressions of Laughter and Smiling 1 60

Autonomic and Visceral Concomitants of Mirth 162

Laughter in Nonhuman Animals 165

The Play Face 165

Laughter and Smiling in Apes 166

"Laughter" in Rats? 168

Pathological Laughter 169

Laughter and the Brain 171

Tickling as a Stimulus for Laughter 173

The Neural Basis of Cognitive Processes in Humor 176

Humor and Brain Injury 176

EEC Studies 179

Brain-Imaging Studies 181

Evolutionary Theories of Humor and Laughter 185

Conclusion 188

CHAPTER 7

Personality Approaches to the Sense of Humor 191

What Is Sense of Humor? 192

Individual Differences in Humor Appreciation 195

Theoretically-based Content Approaches 196

Early Factor Analytic Studies 197

Ruch's Factor-Analytic Investigations 200

Personality Correlates of the 3WD Dimensions 202

Self-Report Measures of Sense of Humor Dimensions 205

Svebak's Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) 206

The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) 208

The Coping Humor Scale (CHS) 210

The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) 210

The State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI) 214

Sense of Humor as an Ability 216

Sense of Humor as Styles of Humorous Conduct 219

How Many Different Senses of Humor Exist? 221

CONTENTS

Personality Characteristics of Professional Humorists 223

Conclusion 225

CHAPTER 8

The Developmental Psychology of Humor 229

Smiling and Laughter in Infancy and Early Childhood 230

Humor and Play 234

Humor and Cognitive Development 238

McGhee's Four-Stage Model of Humor Development 239

The Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children's Humor 241

Humor and Cognitive Mastery 243

Cognitive Development of Irony and Sarcasm 244

Humor as Emotional Coping 247

Interpersonal Aspects of Humor in Children 249

Social Influences on Humor Appreciation and Laughter 250

Teasing Among Children 250

Individual Differences in Children's Sense of Humor 252

Genetic Factors in Sense of Humor 253

Family Environment Factors in Sense of Humor Development 256

Personality and Behavioral Correlates of Children's Sense of Humor 259

Humor and Aging 263

Conclusion 266

CHAPTER 9

Humor and Mental Health 269

Humor and Emotional Well-Being 270

Experimental Investigations of Humor and Emotions 270

Correlational Studies of Trait Humor and Emotional Well-Being 273

Distinguishing Potentially Healthy and Unhealthy Humor Styles 276

Humor, Stress, and Coping 282

Experimental Investigations of Humor as a Stress Moderator 283

Correlational Studies of Sense of Humor and Coping Styles 285

Humor in Coping with Specific Life Stressors 287

Sense of Humor as a Stress Moderator 291

Process Approaches to Investigating Humor in Coping 295

Interpersonal Aspects of Humor in Mental Health 297

Humor as a Facilitator of Healthy Relationships 299

Interpersonal Aspects of Coping Humor 303

Conclusion 305

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 10

Humor and Physical Health 309

Popular Beliefs About Humor and Health 310

How Might Humor Affect Health? 3 1 3

Humor and Immunity 317

Experimental Investigations 317

Correlational Studies 321

Humor and Pain 323

Humor, Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease 326

Humor and Illness Symptoms 327

Humor and Longevity 329

Conclusion 331

CHAPTER

Applications of Humor in Psychotherapy, Education,

and the Workplace 335

Humor in Psychotherapy and Counseling 336

Humor-Based Therapies 337

Humor as a Specific Therapeutic Technique 339

Humor as a Therapist Skill 341

Research on Humor in the Therapeutic Process 343

Risks of Humor in Therapy 346

Conclusion 349

Humor in Education 349

Descriptive Studies of Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom 351

Teachers' Use of Humor and the Classroom Environment 352

Teachers' Use of Humor and Students' Learning 354

Effects of Humor in Tests and Exams 356

Effects of Humor in Textbooks 357

Caveats in the Use of Humor in Education 358

Conclusion 359

Humor in the Workplace 360

Social Functions of Humor in the Workplace 361

Humor as a Reflection of Organizational Culture 365

Humor in Negotiation and Mediation 366

Humor in Leadership 367

Conclusion 368

General Discussion 369

REFERENCES 373

SUBJECT INDEX 421

AUTHOR INDEX 431

u,Lnderstanding the nature of humor is a

problem for psychology. Humor, comedy, and laughter are important and engaging

aspects of behavior. Consequently, they have received attention from many perspec-tives and approaches. The amount and diversity of relevant information should have

made this book impossible to write. The material for a work on humor is widely scat-

tered, both in space and time. Even if the focus is on psychology, all the other areas

touching humor need to be examined. Not only empirical research, but rational and

literary thought must be included. Rod Martin has not only brought this material

together but turned it into an easy read. To borrow a simile from James Agee, it must

have been like "putting socks on an octopus."The Psychology ofHumor: An Integrative Approach can stand at the head of a line

of books that have presented a picture of this universal trait. Any philosopher whowrote on human nature discussed laughter and, at least by implication, humor.

Bergson and Freud at the beginning of the last century focused on laughter and wit

to present testable, if not tested, hypotheses. Psychologists in the middle of the

century included humor as part of their assessments of personality. Chapman and

Foot, and Goldstein and McGhee (as well as McGhee and Goldstein) gave humorscholars a platform in the 1970s and 1980s. Separate chapters in these various books

permitted presentation of data and ideas, but little interaction or direct communica-

tion. Even now, with a yearly conference and a quarterly journal, disagreement is more

typical than exchange and cooperation. Here, then, with a single voice Martin surveys

xiii

FOREWORD

and integrates a disparate field. After 100 years, we have some answers to the ques-

tions the theories have raised. It is possible to evaluate incongruity/surprise, aggres-

sion/superiority, tension/release, and so on. Their points of overlap and agreement as

well as their conflicts can be examined and a decision advanced as to what predictions

are most accurate.

As the past century has evolved, humor has broadened and increased in scope.

Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the Internet supply more accessible

and to a degree less critical outlets for humor. One might complain that increased

quantity has led to decreased quality. On the other hand, quantity also leads to more

variability, so the best is better yet! Humor has become a more significant reflection

of society and humanity as a whole. In these pages, the current state of our knowl-

edge is assessed. The direction of future inquiry and understanding can be seen.

Life, it has been said, would be meaningless without art. Perhaps it would be too

meaningful without humor. Here, then, is a thorough description and evaluation of

the good, the bad, and the playful behavior that is a common and significant part of

life.

Peter Derks

Professor Emeritus

College of William and Mary

Hlumor is a ubiquitous human activity that

occurs in all types of social interaction. Most of us laugh at something funny manytimes during the course of a typical day. Although it is a form of play, humor serves

a number of "serious" social, cognitive, and emotional functions. Fascinating ques-tions about humor and laughter touch on every area of psychology. Surprisingly,

however, despite its obvious importance in human behavior, humor and related topics

like laughter, irony, and mirth are hardly ever mentioned in psychology texts and other

scholarly books. Although there is a sizable and continually expanding research liter-

ature on this subject, most psychologists seem to have little systematic knowledgeof it.

The main purpose of this book, then, is to provide an integrative review of theoryand research findings in all areas of the psychology of humor, with one chapterdevoted to each branch of the discipline (cognitive, social, biologic, personality, devel-

opmental, clinical, etc.). The book is designed in part to be used as a textbook for

senior undergraduate- or graduate-level courses in the psychology of humor.

Although such courses are not currently part of the curriculum in most psychology

departments, it is my hope that the availability of this book will encourage instruc-

tors to consider offering one. This course, like the book, would typically be organ-ized around the different areas of psychology, with a week or two spent on each

chapter. In my experience, this is always a very popular course, and it serves as an

excellent vehicle for demonstrating to students how a very intriguing, enjoyable, and

xv

personally relevant aspect of behavior can be approached from the perspective of each

branch of psychology, providing a comprehensive and compelling understanding of

the topic.

In addition to its purpose as a course textbook, I have also attempted to make this

book useful as a research handbook for students as well as more seasoned academics

who might be interested in conducting their own research in this topic area. In each

chapter, therefore, I point out interesting questions that remain to be answered, novel

hypotheses arising from recent developments in various areas of psychology, and

promising research methods for addressing these questions. Researchers will no doubt

see other ways that concepts from their own field of investigation could be applied to

an understanding of humor. I also include an extensive bibliography for those whowish to examine the primary sources more closely. It is my hope that this book will

trigger many interesting new ideas and stimulate readers to branch into this research

area.

In addition to students and academic psychologists, I hope this book will be ben-

eficial to scholars from other disciplines who are interested in learning about howhumor has been investigated by psychologists. At various points in the book, I touch

on some of the contributions of several other disciplines, such as anthropology,

biology, computer science, linguistics, and sociology, which augment the research of

psychologists. Finally, this book is also intended for practitioners in health care (e.g.,

physicians, nurses, occupational and physical therapists), counseling, social work, edu-

cation, and business, who may be interested in potential applications ofhumor in their

respective fields. I therefore do not assume that readers necessarily have a strong back-

ground in psychology. For those who may be less familiar with the discipline, I try to

provide enough information to make the theories, methods, and findings reasonablyaccessible. Thus, I am attempting to reach a fairly broad audience with this book. I

ask the reader's indulgence if I seem to be "spreading myself too thin."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

iis book could not have been written

without the help of many people. My interest in the academic study of humor was

first kindled by my graduate research adviser at the University of Waterloo, Herb Lef-

court, whose intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for scholarship have provided an

inspiration and role model for me throughout my career. Over the years, I have honed

my thinking about humor in many hours of lively discussion with several colleagues,

including Nick Kuiper at the University of Western Ontario, with whom I have col-

laborated on a number of projects, and my good friends and fellow members of the

International Society for Humor Studies, Peter Derks, Willi Ruch, and Sven Svebak.

I am also grateful to a number of other research collaborators, including Eric Bressler,

Jay Brinker, Lome Campbell, Guohai Chen, Kathy Dance, David Dozois, Paul

Frewen, Shahe Kazarian, Paavo Kerkkanen, Joan Olinger, Tony Vernon, and Lynne

Zarbatany. I have also learned a great deal from my students, whose inquisitiveness

and fresh insights have provided me with ongoing inspiration. Those who have

worked with me on the topic of humor include James Dobbin, Patricia Doris, Gwen

Dutrizac, Jeanette Gray, Tim Hillson, Melissa Johari, Jennie Ward, Kelly Weir, and

Jeremy Yip.

I also wish to thank the following individuals who read drafts of various sections

of this book and provided me with helpful feedback and suggestions: Albert Katz,

Martin Kavaliers, Nick Kuiper, Paul Lewis, Jim Olson, and Willi Ruch. I am espe-

cially indebted to Peter Derks, who read and responded to every chapter, and whose

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

unfailing encouragement and enthusiasm for this project helped keep me going.

Needless to say, however, I take full responsibility for all errors and omissions. I amalso grateful for the support and encouragement of my good friends, Ed Beharry, Ray

Cardey, George Vanderschaaf, and John Zinkann. I am blessed by a warm and caring

family, and am buoyed by the love ofmy daughters Rachelle (and her husband Andrew

and their children Caroline and Christina) and Julia (and her husband Ben), and myson Ben. Finally, and most importantly, I cannot fully express my gratitude to my wife,

Myra, whose enduring love and cheerful sense of humor have sustained me, and to

whom I dedicate this book.

CHAPTER 1

Wee all know what it is like to experience

humor. Someone tells a joke, relates an amusing personal anecdote, makes a witty

comment or an inadvertent slip of the tongue, and we are suddenly struck by how

funny it is. Depending on how amusing we perceive the stimulus to be, it might cause

us to smile, to chuckle, or to burst out in peals of convulsive laughter. Our response

is accompanied by pleasant feelings of emotional well-being and mirth. Most of us

have this sort of experience many times during the course of a typical day.

Because humor is so familiar and is such an enjoyable and playful activity, manypeople might think they already understand it and do not need research in psychol-

ogy to explain it. However, the empirical study of humor holds many interesting sur-

prises. Although it is essentially a type of mental play involving a lighthearted,

nonserious attitude toward ideas and events, humor serves a number of "serious"

social, emotional, and cognitive functions, making it a fascinating and rewarding topic

of scientific investigation.

The topic of humor raises a host of intriguing questions of relevance to all areas

of psychology. What are the mental processes involved in "getting a joke" or per-

ceiving something to be funny? How is humor processed in the brain, and what effect

does it have on our bodies? What is laughter and why do we laugh in response to

humorous things? Why is humor so enjoyable? What role does humor play in our

interactions with other people? What is a sense of humor and how does it develop in

children? Is a good sense of humor beneficial for mental and physical health?

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

As is evident from these and other related questions, humor touches on all

branches of academic psychology (R. A. Martin, 2000). Researchers in the area of

cognitive psychology may be interested in the mental processes involved in the per-

ception, comprehension, appreciation, and creation of humor. The interpersonal

functions of humor in dyadic interactions and group dynamics are of relevance to

social psychology. Developmental psychologists may focus on the way humor and

laughter develop from infancy into childhood and throughout the lifespan. Personal-

ity researchers might examine individual differences in sense of humor and their rela-

tion to other traits and behaviors. Biological psychology can shed light on the

physiological bases of laughter and the brain regions underlying the comprehensionand appreciation of humor. The role of humor in mental and physical health, as well

as its potential applications in psychotherapy, education, and the workplace, are of

interest to applied branches of psychology such as clinical, health, educational, and

industrial-organizational psychology. Thus, researchers from every branch of the dis-

cipline have potentially interesting contributions to make to the study of humor.

Indeed, a complete understanding of the psychology of humor requires an integra-

tion of findings from all these areas.

Despite the obvious importance ofhumor in many different areas ofhuman expe-rience and its relevance to all branches of psychology, mainstream psychology has paid

surprisingly little attention to this subject up to now. Humor research typically

receives scant mention, if any at all, in undergraduate psychology texts or scholarly

books. Nonetheless, there has been a steady accumulation of research on the topic

over the years, producing a sizable body of knowledge. The overall aim of this

book is therefore to introduce students and academics in psychology, as well as

scholars and professional practitioners from other fields, to the existing research lit-

erature, and to point out interesting avenues for farther study in this fascinating topic

area.

In this chapter, I will begin by summarizing evidence of the universality and evo-

lutionary origins of humor and laughter in humans. I will then explore the questionofwhat humor is, discussing four essential elements of the humor process and the rel-

evance of each to an integrative psychology of humor. This will be followed by a

survey of the many different forms of humor that we encounter during our daily lives,

and an examination of the psychological functions of humor and laughter. Next, I will

summarize the history of the concept of humor, examining the way popular concep-tions and assumptions about humor and laughter have changed dramatically over the

centuries. Finally, I will discuss the psychological approach to humor and then presentan overview of the rest of this book.

THE UNIVERSALITY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

Humor and laughter are a universal aspect of human experience, occurring in all

cultures and virtually all individuals throughout the world (Apte, 1985; Lefcourt,

2001). Laughter is a distinctive, stereotyped pattern of vocalization that is easily rec-

THE UNIVERSALITY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

ognized and quite unmistakable (Provine and Yong, 1991). Although different cul-

tures have their own norms concerning the suitable subject matter of humor and the

types of situations in which laughter is considered appropriate, the sounds of laugh-ter are indistinguishable from one culture to another. Developmentally, laughter is

one of the first social vocalizations (after crying) emitted by human infants (McGhee,1979). Infants begin to laugh in response to the actions of other people at about four

months of age, and cases of gelastic (i.e., laughter-producing) epilepsy in newborns

indicate that the brain mechanisms for laughter are already present at birth (Sher and

Brown, 1976). The innateness of laughter is further demonstrated by the fact that

even children born deaf and blind have been reported to laugh appropriately without

ever having perceived the laughter of others (Provine, 2000). Indeed, there is evidence

of specialized brain circuits for humor and laughter in humans, which researchers are

beginning to identify by means of neural imaging studies. Thus, being able to enjoyhumor and express it through laughter seems to be an essential part of what it means

to be human.

Interestingly, though, humans are not the only animal that laughs. Primatologistshave studied in some detail a form of laughter emitted by young chimpanzees, which

was first described by Charles Darwin (1872). Similar types of laughter have also been

observed in other apes, including bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas (Preuschoft and

van Hooff, 1997; van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). Ape laughter is described as a stac-

cato, throaty, panting vocalization that accompanies the relaxed open-mouth or "play

face," and is emitted during playful rough-and-tumble social activities such as

wrestling, tickling, and chasing games (see Figure 1). Although it sounds somewhat

different from human laughter, it is quite recognizable as such, occurring in similar

social contexts as laughter in human infants and young children. Indeed, there is goodreason to believe that human and chimpanzee laughter have the same evolutionary

origins and many of the same functions.

In addition to laughter, there is evidence that apes may even have the capacity for

a rudimentary sense of humor. Chimpanzees and gorillas that have been taught to

communicate by means of sign language have been observed to use language in playful

ways that are very reminiscent of humor, such as punning, humorous insults, and

incongruous word use (Gamble, 2001). Interestingly, these humorous uses of linguis-

tic signs are sometimes also accompanied by laughter and the play face, indicating a

close link between humor, play, and laughter even in apes.

All of these lines of evidence suggest that humor and laughter in humans are a

product of natural selection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005). Laughter appears to have

originated in social play and to be derived from primate play signals. It is viewed by

evolutionary researchers as part of the nonverbal "gesture-call" system, which has a

long evolutionary history, predating the development of language (Burling, 1993).

With the evolution of greater intellectual and linguistic abilities, humans have adaptedthe laughter-generating play activities of their primate ancestors to the mental playwith words and ideas that we now call humor (Caron, 2002). Thus, although they

usually do not chase and tickle one another in rough-and-tumble play, human adults,

by means of humor, continue to engage in frequent social play. These evolutionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

FIGURE 1 The chimpanzee play face. The characteristic "play face" (open mouth, upperteeth covered, lower teeth exposed) accompanies panting laughter. Getty Images/PhotoDisc

origins of humor and laughter suggest that they likely have important social-

emotional functions that have contributed to our survival as a species.

Although humor has a biological basis rooted in our genes, it is also evident that

cultural norms and learning play an important role in determining how it is used in

social interactions, and what topics are considered appropriate for it. In addition,

although all forms ofhumor seem to originate in a basic play structure, the complexityofhuman language and imagination enables us to create humor in a seemingly endless

variety of forms. As human language, culture, and technology have evolved, we have

developed new methods and styles of communicating it, from spontaneous interper-

sonal joking and banter to oral storytelling traditions, comedic drama and humorous

literature, comedy films, radio and television shows, and jokes and cartoons dissemi-

nated over the Internet.

Besides being a form of playful fun and entertainment, humor has taken on a wide

range of social functions over the course of human biological and cultural evolution.

Many of these interpersonal functions are contradictory and paradoxical. Humor can

WHAT IS HUMOR?

be a method of enhancing social cohesion within an in-group, but it can also be a wayof excluding individuals from an out-group. It can be a means of reducing but also

reinforcing status differences among people, expressing agreement and sociability but

also disagreement and aggression, facilitating cooperation as well as resistance, and

strengthening solidarity and connectedness or undermining power and status. Thus,while originating in social play, humor has evolved in humans as a universal mode of

communication and social influence with a variety of functions.

WHAT IS HUMOR?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines humor as "that quality of action, speech, or

writing which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun." It

goes on to say that humor is also "the faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or

amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing, or other composition; jocose imagi-nation or treatment of a subject" (Simpson and Weiner, 1989, p. 486). It is evident

from these definitions that humor is a broad term that refers to anything that people

say or do that is perceived as funny and tends to make others laugh, as well as the

mental processes that go into both creating and perceiving such an amusing stimu-

lus, and also the affective response involved in the enjoyment of it.

From a psychological perspective, the humor process can be divided into four

essential components: (1) a social context, (2) a cognitive-perceptual process, (3) an

emotional response, and (4) the vocal-behavioral expression of laughter.

The Social Context of Humor

Humor is fundamentally a social phenomenon. We laugh and joke much more

frequently when we are with other people than when we are by ourselves (R. A. Martin

and Kuiper, 1999; Provine and Fischer, 1989). People do occasionally laugh when theyare alone, such as while watching a comedy show on television, reading a humorous

book, or remembering a funny personal experience. However, these instances of

laughter can usually be seen as "pseudo-social" in nature, because one is still respond-

ing to the characters in the television program or the author of the book, or reliving

in memory an event that involved other people.Humor can (and frequently does) occur in virtually any social situation. It can

occur between spouses who have lived together for fifty years or between strangers

waiting at a bus stop. It can take place in the conversation of a group of close friends

casually sitting around a table in a coffee shop, or in the interactions of a group of

business people participating in formal negotiations. It can be used by public speak-

ers, such as politicians or religious leaders, addressing large audiences either in personor via the media.

The social context of humor is one of play. Indeed, humor is essentially a way for

people to interact in a playful manner. As I have already noted, research on laughterin chimpanzees and other apes indicates that laughter originates in social play (van


Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). In humans, our ability to create humor to amuse one

another and evoke laughter appears to have evolved as a means of providing us with

extended opportunities for play. Play seems to serve important social, emotional, and

cognitive functions (Bateson, 2005). Indeed, all mammals engage in play as juveniles,

but, unlike most other animals, humans continue to play throughout their lives, most

notably through humor.

When they engage in play, people take a nonserious attitude toward the things

they are saying or doing, and they carry out these activities for their own sake

for the fun of it rather than having a more important goal in mind. PsychologistMichael Apter (1991) has referred to the playful state of mind associated with humoras the paratelic mode, which he distinguishes from the more serious, goal-directed telic

mode (from Greek telos = goal). According to Apter, we switch back and forth between

these serious and playful states of mind many times during the course of a typical day.

The humorous, playful mode of functioning can occur for brief moments or for

extended periods of time. In a business meeting, for example, someone may make a

humorous quip that causes the group to laugh and enter the playful paratelic frame

of mind for a brief moment, before resuming their more serious telic mode of dis-

course. In more casual settings, when people are feeling relaxed and uninhibited, they

may engage in playful and humorous storytelling and joke swapping for several hours

at a time.

Cognitive-Perceptual Processes in Humor

Besides occurring in a social context, humor is characterized by particular sorts

of cognitions. To produce humor, an individual needs to mentally process informa-

tion coming from the environment or from memory, playing with ideas, words, or

actions in a creative way, and thereby generating a witty verbal utterance or a comical

nonverbal action that is perceived by others to be funny. In the reception of humor,we take in information (something someone says or does, or something we read)

through our eyes and ears, process the meaning of this information, and appraise it

as nonserious, playful, and humorous.

What are the characteristics of a stimulus that cause us to perceive it to be funny?As we will see in the next two chapters, this question has been a topic of much schol-

arly debate and research for centuries (see also Roeckelein, 2002). Most investigators

would agree, however, that humor involves an idea, image, text, or event that is in

some sense incongruous, odd, unusual, unexpected, surprising, or out of the ordinary.In addition, there needs to be some aspect that causes us to appraise the stimulus as

nonserious or unimportant, putting us into a playful frame of mind at least momen-

tarily. Thus, the essence of humor seems to be incongruity, unexpectedness, and play-

fulness, which evolutionary theorists Matthew Gervais and David Wilson (2005)

referred to as "nonserious social incongruity." This constellation of cognitive elements

appears to characterize all forms of humor, including jokes, teasing, and witty banter,

unintentional types of humor such as amusing slips of the tongue or the proverbial

person slipping on the banana peel, the laughter-eliciting peek-a-boo games and

WHAT IS HUMOR?

rough-and-tumble play of children, and even the humor of chimpanzees and gorillas

(Wyer and Collins, 1992).

Arthur Koestler (1964) coined the term bisodation to refer to the mental processinvolved in perceiving humorous incongruity. According to Koestler, bisociation

occurs when a situation, event, or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspec-tive of two self-consistent but normally unrelated and even incompatible frames of

reference. Thus, a single event "is made to vibrate simultaneously on two different

wavelengths, as it were" (p. 35). A simple example is a pun, in which two different

meanings of a word or phrase are brought together simultaneously (e.g., Two canni-

bals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?").

According to Koestler, this same process underlies all types of humor.

Michael Apter (1982) used the concept of synergy to describe this cognitive

process, in which two contradictory images or conceptions of the same object are held

in one's mind at the same time. In the playful paratelic state, according to Apter, syn-

ergies are enjoyable and emotionally arousing, producing the pleasurable sensation of

having one's thoughts oscillate back and forth between two incompatible interpreta-

tions of a concept. Thus, in humor, we playfully manipulate ideas and activities so

that they are simultaneously perceived in opposite ways, such as real and not real,

important and trivial, threatening and safe. As we will see in later chapters, a greatdeal of theoretical discussion and research in the psychology of humor has focused

on exploring in greater detail the cognitive processes underlying the perception and

appreciation of humor.

Emotional Aspects of Humor

Our response to humor is not just an intellectual one. The perception of humor

invariably also evokes a pleasant emotional response, at least to some degree. Psy-

chological studies have shown that exposure to humorous stimuli produces an increase

in positive affect and mood (Szabo, 2003). The emotional nature of humor is also

clearly demonstrated by recent brain imaging research showing that exposure to

humorous cartoons activates the well-known reward network in the limbic system of

the brain (Mobbs et al., 2003). The funnier a particular cartoon is rated by a partic-

ipant, the more strongly these parts of the brain are activated. From other research,

we know that these same brain circuits underlie pleasurable emotional states associ-

ated with a variety of enjoyable activities including eating, listening to enjoyable

music, sexual activity, and even ingestion of mood-altering drugs. This explains whyhumor is so enjoyable and why people go to such lengths to experience it as often as

they can: whenever we laugh at something funny, we are experiencing an emotional

high that is rooted in the biochemistry of our brains.

It can therefore be argued that humor is essentially an emotion that is elicited bythe particular types of cognitive processes discussed in the previous section. Just as

other emotions like joy, jealousy, or fear occur in response to specific types of

appraisals of the social and physical environment (Lazarus, 1991), so humor comprisesan emotional response that is elicited by a particular set of appraisals, namely the


perception that an event or situation is incongruously funny or amusing. The pleas-

ant emotion associated with humor, which is familiar to all of us, is a unique feeling

of well-being that is described by such terms as amusement, mirth, hilarity, cheerfulness,

and merriment. It is closely related to joy, and contains an element of exultation and

a feeling of invincibility, a sense of expansion of the self that the seventeenth-century

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes referred to as "sudden glory."

Surprisingly, although it is a feeling that is familiar to everyone, scholars have not

yet settled on an agreed-upon technical term to denote this particular emotion.

Researchers have specific terms to denote emotions like joy, love, fear, anxiety, depres-

sion, and so forth, but there is no common name for the emotion elicited by humor.

This is because it is so closely aligned with laughter that, until recently, theorists and

researchers have tended to focus on the more obvious behavior of laughter instead of

the emotion that underlies it. Some researchers have used the expressions "humor

appreciation" (e.g., Weisfeld, 1993) or "amusement" (e.g., Shiota et al., 2004) to

denote this emotion, but these terms seem to be too cognitive and do not fully captureits emotional nature. Psychologist Willibald Ruch (1993) has proposed the word exhil-

aration (related to hilarity, from Latin hilaris = cheerful) as a technical term for this

emotion. While exhilaration, in its common English meaning, contains a sense of

excitement in addition to cheerfulness, Ruch suggested that this use of the term would

de-emphasize the excitement component, underscoring instead the emotional quality

of cheerfulness, amusement, and funniness. However, this term does not seem to have

caught on with researchers, who likely have difficulty shedding the connotation of

excitement.

To denote this emotion, we need a term that is clearly emotion-related and is

associated with humor and laughter but without being synonymous with either one,

and which can have a range of intensities. In my view, the word mirth works very well

for this purpose. The Oxford English Dictionary defines mirth as "pleasurable feeling,

. . . joy, happiness; gaiety of mind, as manifested in jest and laughter; merriment, hilar-

ity" (Simpson and Weiner, 1989, p. 841). This seems to be exactly the required

meaning. Some researchers have used the word mirth to refer to smiling and laugh-

ter, which are facial and vocal expressions of the emotion rather than the emotion

itself, and therefore should be kept distinct. In this book, then, I will refer to this

emotion as mirth.

Mirth, then, is the distinctive emotion that is elicited by the perception of humor.

Like other emotions (e.g., joy, love, sadness, fear), mirth can occur with varying

degrees of intensity, ranging from mild feelings of amusement to very high levels of

hilarity (Ruch, 1993). Also like other emotions, mirth has physiological as well as expe-riential components. Along with the distinctive subjective feelings of pleasure, amuse-

ment, and cheerfulness, this emotion is accompanied by a range of biochemical

changes in the brain, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine system, involving a

variety of molecules, including neurotransmitters, hormones, opioids, and neuropep-tides (Panksepp, 1993). This neurochemical cocktail has further effects on many parts

of the body, including the cardiovascular, muskuloskeletal, digestive, and immune

systems (W. F. Fry, 1994). The biological concomitants of the emotion of mirth form

WHAT IS HUMOR?

the basis of claims that have been made in recent years about potential health bene-

fits of humor and laughter. However, the exact nature of the physiological changes

accompanying mirth is not yet well understood, and further research is needed before

we can say with confidence whether these effects have significant health benefits

(R. A. Martin, 2001,2002).The essentially emotional nature of humor is something that many scholars have

failed to recognize until quite recently. In the past, most theorists and researchers have

viewed it as primarily a cognitive process rather than an emotional one. A great deal

of philosophical debate and research effort has been expended on attempts to iden-

tify the precise cognitive-perceptual elements that are necessary and sufficient for

humor to occur, with little recognition of the fact that what these cognitive appraisals

elicit is an emotion. This would be like researchers who study depression or anxiety

spending all their time debating about the specific types of events and cognitive

appraisals that elicit these mood states without ever noticing their emotional nature.

Although much has been learned about the cognitive aspects of humor (and there is

still more work to do in this area), theory and research directed at the emotional com-

ponent of humor has only recently begun. Recent research efforts bridging social and

biological psychology hold particular promise for further exciting breakthroughs in

this area.

Laughter as an Expression of the Emotion of Mirth

Like other emotions, the mirthful pleasure accompanying humor also has an

expressive component, namely laughter and smiling. At low levels of intensity, this

emotion is expressed by a faint smile, which turns into a broader grin and then audible

chuckling and laughter as the emotional intensity increases. At very high intensities,

it is expressed by loud guffaws, often accompanied by a reddening of the face as well

as bodily movements such as throwing back the head, rocking the body, slapping one's

thighs, and so on. Thus, laughter is essentially a way of expressing or communicat-

ing to others the fact that one is experiencing the emotion of mirth, just as frowning,

scowling, yelling, and clenching one's fists communicate the emotion of anger. Laugh-ter is therefore fundamentally a social behavior: if there were no other people to com-

municate to, we would not need laughter. This is no doubt why it is so loud, why it

comprises such a distinctive and easily recognized set of sounds, and why it rarely

occurs in social isolation.

As we have already seen, the laughter of chimpanzees and other apes is typically

accompanied by a characteristic facial expression called the relaxed open-mouth

display, or play face, which is also seen in other primates and is shown during play.

Many theorists have suggested that the main function of laughter, in humans as well

as apes, is to signal to others that one is engaging in play, rather than being serious

(e.g., van Hooff, 1972). When chimpanzees are playfully fighting and chasing each

other, it is important for them to be able to let each other know that they are just

having fun and not seriously intending to harm one another. In humans also, laugh-

ter can be a signal of friendliness and playful intentions, indicating that one is in a


nonserious frame of mind. The laughter accompanying friendly teasing, for example,

signals that a seemingly insulting message is not to be taken seriously.

More recently, researchers have suggested that the purpose of laughter is not just

to communicate that one is in a playful state, but to actually induce this state in others

as well (Owren and Bachorowski, 2003; Russell, Bachorowski, and Fernandez-Dols,

2003). According to this view, the peculiar sounds of laughter have a direct effect on

the listener, inducing positive emotional arousal that mirrors the emotional state of

the laugher, perhaps by activating certain specialized brain circuits (Gervais and

Wilson, 2005; Provine, 2000). In this way, laughter may serve an important biosocial

function of coupling together the positive emotions of members of a group and

thereby coordinating their activities. This would explain why laughter is so conta-

gious; when we hear someone laughing, it is almost impossible not to feel mirthful

and begin laughing too. Yet another potential social function of laughter is to moti-

vate others to behave in particular ways (Shiota et al., 2004). For example, laughter

can be a method of positively reinforcing others for desirable behavior ("laughing

with"), as well as a potent form of punishment directed at undesirable behaviors

("laughing at").

In summary, the psychological process of humor involves a social context, a

cognitive appraisal process comprising the perception of playful incongruity, the emo-

tional response of mirth, and the vocal-behavioral expression of laughter. Neurolog-ical studies indicate that these different components of the humor process involve

different but interconnected regions of the brain (Wild et al., 2003). The word humor

is often used in a narrow sense to refer specifically to the cognitive-perceptual com-

ponent, the mental processes that go into creating or perceiving something funny or

amusing. I will also occasionally use it in this narrow sense, since there does not seem

to be another word to denote this cognitive process. It is important to bear in mind,

though, that in a broader sense, humor refers to all four components, and all of them

need to be addressed in an integrative psychology of humor.

THE MANY FORMS OF HUMOR

We have seen that humor is essentially an emotional response of mirth in a social

context that is elicited by a perception of playful incongruity and is expressed through

smiling and laughter. Although these basic elements are common to all instances of

humor, the range of social situations and events that can elicit the humor response is

remarkably diverse. During the course of a typical day, we encounter many different

forms of humor communicated by different means and for different purposes. Someof this humor comes to us via the mass media. Radio hosts frequently crack jokes and

make witty comments; television provides us with a constant diet of humor in the

form of sitcoms, blooper shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous

advertisements; and we encounter it also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons,

comedy movies, and humorous books. Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons,

and lectures by politicians, religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.


However, most of the humor and laughter that we experience in our daily lives

arises spontaneously in the course of our normal relations with other people (R. A.

Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This sort of interpersonal humor occurs in nearly every

type of informal and formal interaction, including conversations between lovers, close

friends, fellow students, coworkers, business associates, store clerks and customers,

doctors and patients, teachers and students, and even complete strangers standing in

line at a bank.

Individuals vary in the degree to which they produce humor in their daily inter-

actions with others. Most of us enjoy the positive emotion of mirth so much that we

highly value those individuals who are especially good at making us laugh. These are

the people that we often describe as having a "good sense of humor," and they tend

to be particularly sought out as friends and romantic partners. Some people developsuch a talent at eliciting mirth in others and making them laugh that they become

professional humor producers, entering the ranks of humorous authors, cartoonists,

stand-up comedians, comedy writers, and actors. The billions of dollars spent on

various forms of comedy each year further attest to the high value placed on the emo-tional pleasure associated with humor.

The humor that occurs in our everyday social interactions can be divided into

three broad categories: (1) jokes, which are prepackaged humorous anecdotes

that people memorize and pass on to one another; (2) spontaneous conversational

humor, which is created intentionally by individuals during the course of a social inter-

action, and can be either verbal or nonverbal; and (3) accidental or unintentional

humor.

Jokes

During the course of normal conversations, some people like to amuse others by

telling jokes, which are short, amusing stories ending in a punch line. These are some-

times also referred to as "canned jokes" to distinguish them from the sorts of infor-

mal jesting and witty quips to which the wordsjoke andjoking can also refer. Here is

an example of a joke of this sort (from Long and Graesser, 1988, p. 49):

A man goes to a psychiatrist who gives him a battery of tests. Then he announces his findings. "I'm

sorry to have to tell you that you are hopelessly insane." "Hell," says the client, indignantly, "I want

a second opinion." "Okay," says the doctor, "You're ugly too."

The joke consists of a setup and a punch line. The setup, which includes all but

the last sentence, creates in the listener a particular set of expectations about how the

situation should be interpreted. The punch line suddenly shifts the meaning in an

unexpected and playful way, thus creating the perception of nonserious incongruitythat is necessary for humor to occur. In this particular joke, the punch line plays on

the meaning of the phrase "second opinion," shifting the frame of reference from that

of a serious, professional doctor-patient relationship to a nonsensical one in which

one person is insulting another. The story is clearly playful and nonserious, convey-

ing that the whole thing is meant to be taken as fun. Note, however, that there is also


an aggressive element in this joke ("You're ugly too"). As we will see, there is muchdebate about the degree to which aggression is an essential aspect of all jokes (and

perhaps even all humor).In everyday conversation, joke-telling is usually prefaced by verbal or nonverbal

cues (e.g., "Did you hear the one about . . .") or conforms to certain stock formats

(e.g., "A man went into a bar . . .") that indicate to the audience that the story is meant

to be humorous and that the listeners are expected to laugh (Cashion, Cody, and

Erickson, 1986). Although joke-tellers typically try to draw links between the jokes

they tell and the ongoing topic of conversation, a joke is a context-free and self-

contained unit of humor that carries within itself all the information needed for it to

be understood and enjoyed. It can therefore be told in many different conversational

contexts (Long and Graesser, 1988). Riddles are another form of prepackaged humor

closely related to jokes, which often involve a play on words and are particularly

enjoyed by young children (e.g., Why did the cookie cry? Because his mother was a

wafer so long).

Spontaneous Conversational Humor

Canned jokes represent only a small proportion of the humor that we experiencein our everyday social interactions. In a daily diary study in which we had adults keepa record of every time they laughed over the course of three days, my colleague

Nicholas Kuiper and I found that only about 1 1 percent of daily laughter occurred in

response to jokes. Another 17 percent was elicited by the media, and fully 72 percentarose spontaneously during social interactions, either in response to funny comments

that people made or to amusing anecdotes they told about things that had happenedto them (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This sort of spontaneous conversational

humor is more context-dependent than joke-telling, and is therefore often not as

funny when recounted afterwards ("You had to be there"). In such conversational

humor, nonverbal cues indicating a humorous intent, such as a twinkle in the eye or

a particular tone of voice, are often more ambiguous than in joke-telling, so that the

listener is often not entirely sure if the speaker is jesting or being serious.

Spontaneous conversational humor takes many different forms, and many differ-

ent words exist to describe them (e.g.,jest, witticism, quip, wisecrack, gag). Neal Norrick

(2003), a linguist who has conducted research on humor occurring in everyday con-

versation, suggested that, besides the telling of canned jokes, conversational humor

may be classified into (1) anecdotes (relating an amusing story about oneself or someone

else); (2) wordplay (creating puns, witty responses, or wisecracks that play on the

meaning of words); and (3) irony (a statement in which the literal meaning is differ-

ent from the intended meaning).A more extensive classification system of spontaneous conversational humor

(which they referred to as wit), was developed by psychologists Debra Long and

Arthur Graesser (1988). To obtain a broad sample of the types of humor occurring in

naturalistic conversations, these authors recorded a number of episodes of television

talk shows (e.g., The Tonight Show) and then analyzed the different types of humor


that arose in the interactions between the hosts and their guests. Audience laughterwas used as an indicator of humor. Based on their analyses, these authors identified

the following 1 1 categories, which were distinguished from one another on the basis

of their intentions or uses of humor:

1 . Irony the speaker expresses a statement in which the literal meaning is oppositeto the intended meaning (e.g., saying "What a beautiful day!" when the weather

is cold and stormy).

2. Satire aggressive humor that pokes fun at social institutions or social policy.

3. Sarcasm aggressive humor that targets an individual rather than an institution

(e.g., At a fashionable dinner, a dignified lady rebuked Winston Churchill: "Sir,

you are drunk." "Yes," replied Churchill, "and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall

be sober and you shall still be ugly").

4. Overstatement and understatement changing the meaning of something another

person has said by repeating it with a different emphasis (e.g., A guest asks host

Johnny Carson, who had been married several times: "Have you ever been

married?" A second guest says, "Has he ever been married!").

5. Self-deprecation humorous remarks targeting oneself as the object ofhumor. This

may be done to demonstrate modesty, to put the listener at ease, or to ingratiate

oneself with the listener.

6. Teasing humorous remarks directed at the listener's personal appearance or

foibles. Unlike sarcasm, the intention is not to seriously insult or offend.

7. Replies to rhetorical questions because rhetorical questions are not asked with the

expectation of a reply, giving an answer to one violates a conversational expecta-tion and surprises the person who posed the question. This can therefore be per-ceived as funny, and the intention is usually to simply entertain a conversational

partner.

8. Clever replies to serious statements clever, incongruous, or nonsensical replies to a

statement or question that was meant to be serious. The statement is deliberately

misconstrued so that the speaker replies to a meaning other than the intended

one.

9. Double entendres a statement or word is deliberately misperceived or miscon-

strued so as to evoke a dual meaning, which is often sexual in nature.

10. Transformations offrozen expressions transforming well-known sayings, cliches, or

adages into novel statements (e.g., complaint of a bald man: "Hair today, gone

tomorrow").1 1 . Puns humorous use of a word that evokes a second meaning, usually based on

a homophone (i.e., a word with a different meaning that sounds the same).

Although these categories are not mutually exclusive and there may be other

forms of spontaneous wit that occur in natural conversation but are not observed in

television talk shows (Wyer and Collins, 1992), this list does provide a useful starting

point for thinking about the many different ways humor may be expressed. Neal

Norrick (1984) also discussed what he called stock conversational witticisms, which

are humorous sayings or expressions that are routinely and recurrently used in


conversation (e.g., "faster than greased lightning," or "bring that up again and we'll

vote on it" in response to someone belching). Besides these verbal forms of humor,

people also often intentionally create humor in social interactions by nonverbal

means, such as funny or exaggerated facial expressions, odd ways of walking, bodily

gestures, or mannerisms.

Unintentional Humor

In addition to the things people say and do during social interactions with the

intention of amusing others, much mirth and laughter also arise from utterances or

actions that are not meant to be fanny (Wyer and Collins, 1992). English literature

professors Alleen Nilsen and Don Nilsen (2000) referred to these as accidental humor,

which they divided into physical and linguistic forms. Accidental physical humorincludes minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a banana peel or

spilling a drink on one's shirt. These sorts of events are funny when they occur in a

surprising and incongruous manner and when the person experiencing them is not

seriously hurt or badly embarrassed. This type of humor also forms the basis of slap-

stick and screwball comedy.Accidental linguistic humor arises from misspellings, mispronunciations, errors

in logic, and the kinds of speaker confusions called Freudian slips, malapropisms, and

spoonerisms. This type of unintentional humor occurs, for example, in newspaperheadlines in which an ambiguity creates a humorous alternative meaning (e.g., "Pros-

titutes appeal to pope"; "Dr. Ruth talks about sex with newspaper editors"; "Red tapeholds up bridge"). Spoonerisms are a speech error in which the initial sounds of two

or more words are transposed, creating an unintended and humorous new meaning.

They were named after a nineteenth-century British clergyman named William

Spooner who frequently made such mistakes in his sermons and speeches (e.g., he is

said to have proposed a toast to Queen Victoria, saying "Three cheers for our queerold dean").

In sum, humor is a ubiquitous type of social interaction that takes many differ-

ent forms. The conversational types of humor, including joke-telling, spontaneous

wit, and unintentional humor, are of particular interest to psychologists. However,until quite recently, most of the psychological research on humor has focused largely

on jokes and cartoons (which are essentially visual jokes), and has generally ignoredthe other types. This is in large part because of the self-contained and context-free

nature of jokes and cartoons, which makes them very easy to transport into a labora-

tory setting. Over the years, a great many studies have been conducted in which par-

ticipants (usually sitting by themselves in a laboratory) were presented with various

types of jokes and cartoons under a variety of experimental conditions and were asked

to rate them for funniness. Thus, in humor research, jokes and cartoons have longserved as the equivalent of T-mazes or nonsense syllables in other fields, providing

experimenters with an independent variable that can help control the input in inves-

tigations of this rather nebulous concept.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR

However, humor in these sorts of studies is removed from its natural social

context, and, although these methods have enabled researchers to make many inter-

esting discoveries, they are not as useful for studying the forms and functions ofhumoras it normally occurs in social interaction. In contrast to studying participants'

responses to jokes in a laboratory, it is more difficult to investigate the spontaneousforms ofhumor that arise in everyday conversations and depend on the social context.

For this type of research, investigators may need to go out of the laboratory and studyhumor as it occurs spontaneously in naturalistic settings, or at least have dyads or

groups of people interact with one another in the laboratory.

Besides being the focus of most research, jokes have also served as the prototypeof humor in many past theories, which have tended to focus particularly on the cog-nitive processes underlying the comprehension of these types of humor. Because joke

comprehension may be somewhat different from the cognitive processes involved in

other forms of humor, these theories were often inadequate for explaining all types

of humor. More recently, researchers are beginning to develop theories that account

for other sorts of humor occurring in social interaction besides jokes (e.g., Wyer and

Collins, 1992). These theories often incorporate the emotional and social aspects of

humor as well as the cognitive elements.


Although it is essentially a form of social play enabling us to have fun and derive

emotional pleasure from nonserious incongruities, humor serves a number of impor-tant and "serious" psychological functions, which have likely contributed to our sur-

vival as a species. Some of the benefits of humor derive from the positive emotion

associated with it, and many of these were likely already present in the laughter-

evoking rough-and-tumble play activities ("proto-humor") of our early hominid

ancestors even before the evolution of language. Other functions seem to have been

added on over the course of human evolution through a process known as co-optation

(Gervais and Wilson, 2005). As humans developed greater cognitive and linguistic

abilities, complex patterns of group interaction, and the ability to infer the intentions

and mental states of others, humor and laughter, while originating in rough-and-tumble social play, came to be used for additional purposes relating to social com-

munication and influence, tension relief, and coping with adversity.

The psychological functions of humor can be classified into three broad cate-

gories: (1) cognitive and social benefits of tf ; positive emotion of mirth, (2) uses of

humor for social communication and influence, and (3) tension relief and coping.

Cognitive and Social Functions of the Positive Emotion of Mirth

Human emotions have important adaptive functions. Emotions such as fear

and anger, for example, cause individuals to focus their attention on threats in the


environment, mobilize their energies, and motivate them to take action to deal with

these threats (Levenson, 1994). However, the functions of positive emotions like mirth

and joy are less immediately obvious, since they do not seem to evoke specific action

patterns. In the past, psychologists tended to focus primarily on negative emotions

like depression, fear, and hostility, and did not give much attention to positive emo-

tions like mirth, joy, happiness, and love. More recently, however, psychologists have

begun to investigate positive emotions, and this research is beginning to shed light

on their functions.

Alice Isen (2003) summarized a body of experimental research indicating that

when people are experiencing positive emotions (including comedy-induced mirth),

as compared to neutral or negative emotions, they show improvements in a variety of

cognitive abilities and social behaviors. For example, they demonstrate greater cog-

nitive flexibility, enabling them to engage in more creative problem solving; more effi-

cient organization and integration of memory; more effective thinking, planning, and

judgment; and higher levels of social responsibility and prosocial behaviors such as

helpfulness and generosity (see also Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener, 2005). An exper-

iment by Barbara Fredrickson and Robert Levenson (1998) also demonstrated that

the induction of positive emotions, including mirth, helps to reduce physiological

arousal caused by negative emotions.

Based on these sorts of findings, Barbara Fredrickson (1998, 2001) has proposeda "broaden-and-build" model of the psychological functions of positive emotions such

as mirth. Unlike negative emotions, which tend to narrow one's focus of attention and

motivate one to engage in specific actions, she suggested that positive emotions serve

to broaden the scope of the individual's focus of attention, allowing for more creative

problem-solving and an increased range of behavioral response options, and they also

build physical, intellectual, and social resources that are available to the individual for

dealing with life's challenges. She argued that positive emotions such as mirth are

evolved adaptations that contribute to both mental and physical health. Recent

research by Fredrickson and her colleagues on mirth and other positive emotions has

provided further support for these hypotheses (e.g., Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005;

Fredrickson et al., 2000).

Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004) have also proposed that positive emo-

tions may play an important role in the regulation of interpersonal relationships.

These authors pointed out that humans are social animals that require close rela-

tionships in order to survive. They suggested that positive emotions play a role in

accomplishing three fundamental tasks required for relationships: (1) identifying

potential relationship partners, (2) developing, negotiating, and maintaining key rela-

tionships, and (3) collective agency (i.e., working together with others to achieve goals

that could not be accomplished alone). They suggested that the humor-related posi-

tive emotion of mirth is effective for accomplishing all three of these tasks in various

types of relationships, including romantic partnerships, friendships, and grouprelations. For example, the mirth associated with mutual laughter can be a way of

identifying members of an in-group, selecting and attracting partners, rewarding

cooperative efforts, and enhancing interpersonal bonding and group cohesion.


One way in which humor likely provides important psychological benefits, then,

is by inducing a positive emotional state that is typically shared among two or moreindividuals. The enjoyable subjective feelings accompanying this emotional state

provide a strong incentive to seek out opportunities for humor and laughter, which

in turn fulfill a number of important cognitive and social functions. Many of these

emotion-related benefits were likely already present in the proto-humor of our early

hominid ancestors, providing an evolutionary survival advantage.

Social Communication and Influence

As we have seen, humorous interactions between people take a wide variety of

forms. When people engage in these sorts of humorous exchanges in their everyday

lives, they often have some (perhaps unconscious) purpose or social goal beyond

merely providing amusement and entertainment. Even when telling a joke or saying

funny things to make others laugh, people also often have the underlying goal of

impressing others with their wittiness and gaining attention, prestige, or approval.

Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that humor may be viewed as a modeof interpersonal communication that is frequently used to convey implicit messagesin an indirect manner and to influence other people in various ways. Because it

involves playing with incongruities and contradictory ideas and conveys multiple

meanings at once, humor is a particularly useful form of communication in situations

in which a more serious and direct mode runs the risk of being too confrontational,

potentially embarrassing, or otherwise risky.

For example, if two friends attempt to discuss a difference of opinion in a serious

way, they may become embroiled in endless arguments and counterarguments, with

an accompanying escalation in feelings of frustration and annoyance. However, by

using humor to joke about each other's perspective, they can communicate a sense of

acceptance and appreciation of one another while still maintaining and acknowledg-

ing their different points of view (Kane, Suls, and Tedeschi, 1977). Similarly, if a con-

flict between two people escalates to the point where it threatens their relationship,

a joking comment from one of them can be a way of de-escalating the conflict while

enabling both of them to save face. Thus, humor can be a means of smoothing over

conflicts and tensions between people.

On the other hand, humor is also often used to convey critical or disparaging

messages that might not be well received if communicated in a more serious manner.

In friendly teasing, for example, a message of mild disapproval or censure is commu-nicated using humor (Keltner et al., 2001). This allows the speaker to retract the

message if it is not well received by saying ''I was only joking." Indeed, since every-

one recognizes the ambiguous nature of humor, such a disclaimer is usually not even

necessary. Thus, humor is often a way for individuals to "save face" for themselves

and others, using it to soften the impact of a message or to "test the water" to see

how others will respond.Some of the social functions of humor can also be quite aggressive, coercive, and

manipulative. Although it is a form of play, humor is not necessarily prosocial and


benevolent, and indeed a good deal of humor involves laughing at the behavior and

characteristics of individuals who are perceived to be different in some way and there-

fore incongruous. Over the course ofhuman evolution (much ofwhich involved living

in small groups of hunter-gatherers), humor and laughter seem to have been co-opted

for the purpose of enhancing group identity by enforcing social norms within the

group and excluding members of out-groups, and this function of humor is still very

evident today (Alexander, 1986).

Whereas the "face-saving" communicative uses of humor often involve only two

people, these more aggressive and even hostile uses typically involve three individu-

als or groups: the speaker who communicates the humorous message, the listener(s)

who laugh at it, and the target(s) who are the "butt" of the humor. The target, who

may or may not be physically present, may be a particular individual or a nonspecific

member of a disparaged group, such as a particular gender, ethnic, or religious group.

The humor may be a spontaneous humorous comment or a canned ethnic or sexist

joke. This type of humor enables members of an in-group to enhance their feelings

of group identity and cohesiveness while excluding and emphasizing their differences

from members of an out-group. These aggressive types of humor are often perceived

by participants to be extremely funny and they evoke genuine feelings of mirth and

laughter, even though they occur at the expense of others.

The pleasurable emotion of mirth accompanying humor and laughter can there-

fore be gained at other people's expense, either by passively deriving amusement from

their misfortunes (as described by the interesting German word schadenfreude), or by

actively seeking to humiliate, embarrass, or ridicule them in some way and thereby

enhancing one's own status relative to theirs. Thus, humor can involve "laughing at"

as well as "laughing with." As we will see, many traditional theories suggest that

aggression is actually an essential element of all humor and laughter. Although most

theorists today would not take such an extreme view, few would disagree that humorcan be used in aggressive and even hostile ways.

Since being the target of others' laughter is painful and something most peopleseek to avoid, aggressive forms of humor can also be used as a method of coercing

people into conforming to desired behaviors. Within social groups, humor is often

used to enforce group norms, either by making fun of the discrepant actions and traits

of people who are outside the group or by teasing members within the group when

they engage in deviant behavior. Thus, in aggressive types of joking, teasing, ridicule,

or sarcasm, humor can be used to exclude individuals from a group, reinforce powerand status differences, suppress behavior that does not conform to group norms, and

have a coercive influence on others.

In summary, the social play of humor can be used to communicate a variety of

messages and to achieve any number of social goals that individuals may have at any

particular time, some of which may be congenial and prosocial while others may be

more aggressive or coercive. Humor, then, is inherently neither friendly nor aggres-

sive: it is a means of deriving emotional pleasure that can be used for both amiable

and antagonistic purposes. This is the paradox of humor. If one's goal is to strengthen

relationships, smooth over conflicts, and build cohesiveness, humor can be useful


for those purposes. On the other hand, if one's goal is to ostracize, humiliate, or

manipulate someone, or to build up one's own status at the expense of others, humorcan be useful for those purposes as well. Either way, it can evoke genuine feelings of

mirth.

Tension Relief and Coping with Adversity

Another function of humor that has often been noted is its role in coping with

life stress and adversity (Lefcourt, 2001; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Over the course

of evolution, humans appear to have co-opted the nonserious play ofhumor as a means

of cognitively managing many of the events and situations that threaten their well-

being, by making light of them and turning them into something to be laughed at

(Dixon, 1980). Because it inherently involves incongruity and multiple interpretations,

humor provides a way for the individual to shift perspective on a stressful situation,

reappraising it from a new and less threatening point of view. As a consequence of

this humorous reappraisal, the situation becomes less stressful and more manageable

(Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger, 1993; R. A. Martin et al., 1993).

The positive emotion of mirth accompanying humor replaces the feeling of

anxiety, depression, or anger that would otherwise occur, enabling the person to think

more broadly and flexibly and to engage in creative problem solving (Fredrickson,

2001). In addition, this positive emotion may have a physiological benefit of speed-

ing recovery from the cardiovascular effects of any negative stress-related emotions

that may have been evoked (Fredrickson and Levenson, 1998). Thus, humor may be

viewed as an important emotion regulation mechanism, which can contribute to

mental health (Gross and Mufioz, 1995).

Studies of survivors of extreme adversity such as the brutal conditions of con-

centration camps indicate that humor, in the form of joking about the oppressors as

well as the hardships endured, is often an important means of engendering positive

emotions; maintaining group cohesion and morale; preserving a sense of mastery,

hope, and self-respect; and thereby enabling individuals to survive in seemingly hope-less circumstances (C. V Ford and Spaulding, 1973; Frankl, 1984; Henman, 2001).

Less extreme examples of the liberating potential of humor as a means of triumphingover adversity and refusing to be defeated by the slings and arrows of life can be found

in the daily lives of many people. Humor and laughter provide a means for cancer

patients to make light of their illness and maintain a spirit of optimism, and jokes

about death are a way for people to distance themselves emotionally from thoughtsof their own mortality. Thus, by laughing at the fundamental incongruities of life and

diminishing threats by turning them into objects of nonserious play, humor is a wayof refusing to be overcome by the people and situations, both large and small, that

threaten our well-being.

The aggressive aspects of humor discussed earlier also play a role in this copingfunction. Many of the threats to well-being that humans experience come from other

people. By making fun of the stupidity, incompetence, laziness, or other failings of

the people who frustrate, irritate, and annoy them and thwart their progress toward


their goals, individuals are able to minimize the feelings of distress that these others

might cause, and derive some pleasure at their expense. This use of aggressive humor

in coping can be directed toward particular individuals who create difficulties or at

nonspecific representatives of broader social groups or power structures that are per-

ceived as irritants. While providing a means of enhancing personal feelings of well-

being in the short run, however, such aggressive uses of humor for coping can also

alienate others and have an adverse effect on valued relationships in the longer term

(R. A. Martin et al., 2003).

Like all forms of humor, the use of humor for coping with adversity usually takes

place in a social context. People typically do not begin laughing and cracking jokes

about their problems when they are all alone. Instead, coping humor commonly takes

the form of joking and laughing with other people, either in the midst of an adverse

situation or shortly afterwards. For example, when the events of a particularly

stressful day are discussed among a group of close friends later in the evening, diffi-

culties that earlier seemed distressing and overwhelming can be perceived as humor-

ously incongruous and become the basis of a great deal of hilarity and boisterous

laughter. The greater the emotional arousal and tension engendered by the stressful

events, the greater the pleasure and the louder the laughter when joking about them

afterwards.

This tension-releasing function of humor has been noted by many theorists over

the years, and some have even suggested that tension relief is a defining characteris-

tic of all humor. Although this view is perhaps overstated, it does reflect one of the

important functions of humor and laughter. Thus, it appears that over the course of

human evolution, the cognitive play of humor has been adapted as a means of dealing

with difficulties and hardships, contributing to the resilience and coping potentials

that have enabled humans to survive and thrive.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMOR

Today the word humor is an umbrella term with a generally positive, socially desir-

able connotation, which refers to anything people say or do that is perceived to be

funny and evokes mirth and laughter in others. Interestingly, this broad meaning of

humor has developed only quite recently. Indeed, the word has a very interesting and

complex history, starting out with an entirely different meaning and gradually accu-

mulating new connotations over the centuries. Cultural historian Daniel Wickberg(1998) has provided a detailed and fascinating analysis of the history of this concept,from which I have drawn much of what follows (see also Ruch, 1998a).

Etymology of Humor

Humor began as a Latin word (humorem) meaning fluid or liquid. It still retains

this meaning in physiology in reference to bodily fluids, such as the aqueous and vit-

reous humors of the eye. The Greek physician Hippocrates (fourth century B.C.), who


is considered to be the father of medicine, believed that good health depends on the

proper balance of four fluids, or "humors," of the body, namely blood, phlegm, black

bile, and yellow bile. Later, the Greek physician Galen (second century A.D.), wholived in Rome, introduced the idea that these four fluids possessed particular psycho-

logical qualities, so that an excess of any one of them in an individual created a certain

kind of temperament or character. A predominance of blood caused one to have a san-

guine or cheerful temperament, too much black bile produced a melancholic or

depressive personality, and so on.

Besides being seen as the basis of relatively enduring character traits, fluctuations

in these body fluids began also to be viewed as the cause of more temporary moodstates. These meanings of humor as an enduring character trait or a temporary moodare still present today when we speak of someone being a "good-humored person" or

"in a bad humor." Thus, having originally referred to a physical substance, humor

gradually developed psychological connotations relating to both enduring tempera-ment and temporary mood. Until the sixteenth century, however, it still did not have

any connotation of funniness or association with laughter.In the English language, the word humor (which had been borrowed from the

French humeur) continued to evolve. In the sixteenth century, the idea of humor as

an unbalanced temperament or personality trait led to its use to refer to anybehavior that deviates from social norms. Thus, a "humor" came to mean an odd,

eccentric, or peculiar person (cf. Ben Jonson's Every Man Out of His Humour, 1598,

cited by Wickberg, 1998). Because such people were often viewed as ridiculous, or

objects of laughter and ridicule, it was a small step from there to the association of

humor with funniness and laughter, and its entry into the field of comedy (Ruch,

1998a).

Eventually, the odd or peculiar person who was the object of laughter becameknown as a "humorist," whereas a "man of humor" was someone who took pleasurein imitating the peculiarities of a humorist (e.g., Corbyn Morris in An Essay Toward

Fixing the True Standard of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule, 1 744, cited by

Wickberg, 1998). Thus, humor came to be seen as a talent involving the ability to

make others laugh. It was not until the mid- to late nineteenth century, however, that

the term humorist took on the modern meaning of someone who creates a productcalled "humor" in order to amuse others (Wickberg, 1998). Mark Twain is viewed by

many scholars as one of the first humorists in this modern sense.

Changing Views of Laughter

At the same time that the meaning of the word humor was evolving in the English

language, popular conceptions of laughter and the laughable were also changing

(Wickberg, 1998). Prior to the eighteenth century, laughter was viewed by most

authors almost entirely in negative terms. No distinction was made between "laugh-

ing with" and "laughing at," since all laughter was thought to arise from makingfun of someone. Most references to laughter in the Bible, for example, are linked

with scorn, derision, mockery, or contempt (Koestler, 1964). The philosophical


conception of laughter as essentially a form of aggression can be traced to Aristotle,

who believed that it was always a response to ugliness or deformity in another person,

although he thought it would not occur if the object of laughter aroused other strongemotions such as pity or anger. Following in the long tradition of Aristotle, the

seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw laughter as beingbased on a feeling of superiority, or "sudden glory," resulting from some perception

of inferiority in another person.

During the eighteenth century, the word ridicule (from Latin ridiculum = joke and

ridiculus = laughable) was used in much the same way that we use the word humor

today, that is, as a generic term for anything that causes laughter and mirth. However,it had a much more negative and aggressive connotation than humor has today.

Whereas laughter was a passive response, ridicule was seen as active and aggressive,

a form of attack. Throughout Europe during this time, ridicule became a popular

debating technique for outwitting and humiliating one's adversaries by making them

laughable to others. It also grew into a socially accepted conversational art form for

entertaining others in social gatherings. The person who was adept at generatingclever remarks to skewer others and thereby provoke laughter was seen as a particu-

larly desirable dinner guest. Other words that were commonly used during this time

along with ridicule were raillery and banter. While both of these terms referred to

aggressive forms of witty repartee used in conversation, banter was seen as a coarser,

more impolite, and low-class type of ridicule, whereas raillery was more refined and

socially pleasing.

With the growing view of ridicule as a socially acceptable verbal art form and a

desirable part of amiable conversation, the idea of laughter as an expression of con-

tempt and scorn gradually gave way to a view of it as a response to cleverness and

gamesmanship. The sense of superiority inherent in laughter was now downplayedand seen as secondary, and the intellectual aspects were elevated over the emotional.

Laughter was now associated with a game of wits, a way of showing off one's clever-

ness by creating intellectual surprise in novel relationships between ideas, rather than

an expression of contempt, scorn, superiority, and aggression. By the early nineteenth

century, Hobbes's superiority theory was being replaced by theories that viewed

incongruity as the essence of laughter. This theory was epitomized in the statement

by William Hazlitt, an English writer of the early nineteenth century, that "the essence

of the laughable is the incongruous" (quoted by Wickberg, 1998, p. 56).

This shift away from an essentially aggressive view of laughter was motivated also

by a new sensibility among middle-class British society in the eighteenth century that

emphasized the importance of benevolence, kindness, civility, and sympathy in peopleof refinement. As reflected, for example, in the writings of Adam Smith (e.g., Theory

ofMoral Sentiments, 1759, cited by Wickberg, 1998), a new set of humanitarian values

elevated emotional discernment above cold rational logic. In keeping with this general

outlook, social reformers began to argue in favor of a more humanitarian form of

laughter based on sympathy rather than aggression. This led to the need for a newword to describe this benevolent basis of laughter, and humor was co-opted to serve

this purpose. In contrast, the word ivit (from Old English -witan = to know) began to


be used to refer to the more aggressive types of laughter-evoking behaviors that had

previously been described by the generic term ridicule. Thus, by the early nineteenth

century, the umbrella term ridicule had been replaced by the two contrasting words

wit and humor.

Wit versus Humor

Both wit and humor were seen as being based on incongruity and were methods

of provoking laughter, but they were thought to do so in radically different ways. Thedistinction between these two concepts was first made in theories of dramatic comedy,where wit was associated with comedy based on intellect, while humor involved

comedy based on character (Wickberg, 1998). Over time, wit took on the meaning of

the old word ridicule, referring to aggressive cleverness and wordplay, whereas humor

emphasized sympathy and benevolence, and was seen as a more positive and desirable

basis for laughter. Wit was intellectual, sarcastic, and related to antipathy, whereas

humor was emotional, congenial, and related to "fellow-feeling."

The two words also had different social class connotations. Wit was associated

with the aristocracy and elitism, whereas humor was a more bourgeois, middle-class

concept, associated with universality and democracy. Wit was also considered to be

more artificial and something that could be acquired through learning and practice,

whereas humor was viewed as more natural and an inborn talent in the individual.

Thus, it was generally recognized that laughter could be either aggressive or benev-

olent, and the modern distinction between "laughing at" and "laughing with" was cap-

tured by wit and humor, respectively.

Not surprisingly, humor came to be seen as more socially desirable than wit, and

was described by many writers in glowing terms. For example, one nineteenth-centuryauthor described humor as "the combination of the laughable with an element of love,

tenderness, sympathy, warm-heartedness, or affection" (quoted by Wickberg, 1998,

p. 65). The association between humor and democratic values (as opposed to the

elitism and snobbery of wit) made humor a very popular concept in the egalitarian

culture of the United States, particularly after the Civil War. In his writings on the

subject, Sigmund Freud, like most of his contemporaries, also made the distinction

between humor as benevolent and psychologically healthy and wit as aggressive and

of questionable psychological value (Freud, 1960 [1905]).

Over the course of the twentieth century, however, the distinction between wit

and humor gradually disappeared, and humor came to predominate as the umbrella

term for all things laughable. Humor no longer represented just one (benign) way of

eliciting laughter, but it now referred to all sources of laughter, including more aggres-

sive forms that would previously have been described as wit. At the same time, though,the positive and socially desirable connotation of humor was retained, and all laugh-ter therefore came to be seen as essentially benevolent and sympathetic. All the pos-

itive characteristics that had previously been ascribed to humor, as a subspecies of

the laughable that was distinguished from wit, were now seen as applicable to all

laughter-eliciting phenomena, including the more aggressive forms once identified


with wit. Although laughter itself had once been viewed as essentially aggressive, bythe early twentieth century, many theorists began to suggest that it almost always con-

tains an element of sympathy. Even those who still subscribed to the superiority theory

began to view the aggressive aspects of laughter as tempered in some way by sympa-

thy or playfulness rather than being truly aggressive and malevolent (cf. Gruner,

1997).

Thus, from the seventeenth to the twentieth century, popular conceptions of

laughter underwent a remarkable transformation, shifting from the aggressive antipa-

thy of superiority theory, to the neutrality of incongruity theory, to the view that

laughter could sometimes be sympathetic, to the notion that sympathy is a necessarycondition for laughter (Wickberg, 1998). These changing views were also reflected in

the prevailing social norms. As recently as the 1860s, it was considered impolite to

laugh in public in the United States. Even in the early twentieth century, some spheresof social activity (e.g., religion, education, and politics) were considered inappropri-ate for humor and laughter. Today, of course, humor and laughter are not only con-

sidered acceptable, but are actively encouraged in virtually all social settings.

Evolution of the Concept of Sense of Humor

Along with changes in the meaning of humor and attitudes toward laughter, the

concept of "sense of humor" has also evolved over the past two centuries (Wickberg,

1998). In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, British philosophers devel-

oped the notion of various aesthetic and moral "senses," which were seen as refined

sensitivities or abilities to discern or judge the quality of certain things. Thus, they

spoke of a sense of beauty, a sense of honor, a sense of decency, moral sense, and

common sense. The "sense of the ridiculous" was an early expression to describe sen-

sitivity to laughable things. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, this had been

replaced by the "sense of humor."

Although it began as a purely descriptive term, the sense ofhumor quickly became

a highly valued virtue, taking on the positive connotations that were associated with

humor (as opposed to wit) during that time. By the 1870s, the sense ofhumor acquiredthe very desirable meaning that it has today, referring to a cardinal virtue. To say that

someone had a sense of humor was to say something very positive about his or her

character. Indeed, a sense of humor came to be one of the most important charac-

teristics a person could have. On the other hand, to say that someone lacked a sense

of humor was seen as one of the worst things that could be said about him or her. Noone wanted to admit that they did not have a sense of humor.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the concept of sense of humor contin-

ued to be very desirable, but also became increasingly vague and undefined. While it

always retained some notion of the ability to make others laugh or the enjoyment of

amusement and laughter, it took on the added meaning of a more general set of desir-

able personality characteristics. What it meant to have a sense of humor came to be

defined in large part by what it meant not to have one. Saying that someone lacked a

sense of humor came to mean that he or she was excessively serious, fanatical, or ego-

tistical, an inflexible, temperamental extremist. The lack of a sense of humor was


viewed as a defining characteristic of some forms of mental illness (particularly schiz-

ophrenia), denoting instability and paranoia (Wickberg, 1998).

By the 1930s, a sense of humor was seen by many psychologists as an essential

ingredient of mental health. For example, Gordon Allport (1961) associated a sense

of humor with self-awareness, insight, and tolerance, and viewed it as a characteris-

tic of the mature or healthy personality. It is important to note, however, that he dis-

tinguished between this mature type of humor, which he saw as quite rare, and the

less healthy "sense of the comic," or laughter at absurdities, puns, and the degrada-tion of others, which he saw as much more common. In sum, having a sense ofhumorbecame synonymous with being stable and well-adjusted, being able to adapt to stress,

being temperate, affable, not prone to anger, and easygoing.

During the twentieth century, the sense ofhumor also took on sociopolitical con-

notations and was used for propaganda purposes. In the United States, it came to be

seen as a distinctly American virtue, having to do with tolerance and democracy, in

contrast to those living in dictatorships, such as the Germans under Nazism or the

Russians during the Communist era, who were thought to be devoid of humor. After

the tragic events of September 1 1, 2001, many American commentators expressed the

opinion that Al Qaeda terrorists, and perhaps even all Moslems, lacked a sense of

humor (despite the fact that videotapes ofOsama bin Laden clearly showed him laugh-

ing and joking with his comrades).

Whereas too much humor in the nineteenth century was considered a liability in

someone wishing to run for office, by the mid-twentieth century a sense of humorbecame a necessary characteristic in a politician, especially someone aspiring to be

president. A popular way for both liberals and conservatives to disparage one another

was to claim that they lacked a sense of humor. There has also long been a sexist

aspect to the concept, which was viewed as an essentially masculine characteristic.

Until quite recently, it was commonly assumed by many writers that women gener-

ally lacked a sense of humor (Wickberg, 1998).

The positive qualities associated with the vague concept of sense of humor as a

personality trait in turn fed back into popular connotations of humor and laughter

more generally. By the end of the twentieth century, humor and laughter were not

only seen as essentially benevolent, but as important factors in mental and physical

health. This view gained greater prominence following the publication of a book byNorman Cousins (1979), a well-known magazine editor, describing how he suppos-

edly cured himself of a painful and debilitating disease by means of hearty laughter

(along with massive doses of vitamin C). This book appeared at a time of growingdisenchantment with traditional Western approaches to medicine, and fed into the

rising popularity of alternative or complementary medicines.

The idea that humor and laughter are beneficial for one's health, bolstered also

by psychoneuroimmunology research suggesting links between emotions and immu-

nity, led to the growth of a popular "humor and health movement" among manyhealth care providers, including nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, social

workers, and others. Hospital clowns and comedy rooms became familiar sights in

many hospitals, as humor and laughter came to be viewed as a method of speeding

recovery in patients suffering from chronic pain, cancer, and other ailments. These


developments in health care also contributed to increased interest in applications of

humor in other domains including business, education, and psychotherapy. Althoughthis humor movement has always been seen as somewhat on the fringes rather than

the mainstream, it has attracted considerable attention to potential benefits of humor

and laughter in the popular media as well as professional journals.

A very positive view of humor and laughter continues to predominate in our

culture today. Although there is some recognition that humor can occasionally be

aggressive or inappropriate, this is perceived as an aberration; "normal" humor is sym-

pathetic and benevolent. Aggression-based theories of humor are generally out of

favor with contemporary humor scholars, having been replaced by more benign

cognition-based incongruity theories. Thus, over the past century, humor has taken

on a broad positive connotation. No longer does it merely involve the perception of

incongruity, funniness, mirth, and laughter, but it is also very beneficial, desirable, and

health-enhancing (for an interesting analysis of humor in contemporary American

society, see Lewis, 2006).

This brief overview of the changes in social attitudes and conceptions of humorand laughter over the past few centuries helps us to put our current assumptionsand biases into a broader historical perspective. Although humor and laughter are

universal in humans and are likely a product of natural selection, the way people use

and express them in a given time and place is strongly influenced by cultural norms,

beliefs, attitudes, and values. Most people today view humor as essentially positive,

benevolent, and desirable, and it is strongly encouraged in most areas of life. It is

easy to assume that these attitudes and behavior patterns are universal and have

always been present in all cultures. Not so long ago, however, laughter in our ownculture was seen as essentially aggressive, malevolent, and undesirable, and too much

laughter was frowned upon. The existence of such divergent views over the course of

a relatively brief period of history suggests that there is likely an element of truth to

both extremes. It is important to recognize that humor can be used in ways that are

aggressive as well as sympathetic, and can involve "laughing at" as well as "laughingwith."

If we wish to take a scientific approach to the study of humor, we need to be con-

scious of the assumptions and biases that we ourselves have absorbed from our culture

and that may color our own thinking. As much as possible, we must try to approachthe subject in an objective manner, using empirical research methods to evaluate

popular beliefs instead of merely assuming them to be true. In our theories and

research, we also need to be careful to distinguish between those aspects that are

universal in the human species and those that are specific to particular cultures at

particular times.

HUMOR AND PSYCHOLOGY

Psychology is often defined as the scientific study of behavior. The concept of

behavior in this definition is a very broad one, embracing all kinds of overt actions,

HUMOR AND PSYCHOLOGY

speech, and social interactions, as well as less easily observed processes such as

thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and the biological mechanisms underlying all of these in

the brain and nervous system. With such a diverse subject matter, psychology is a verybroad discipline, and is divided into a number of subfields focusing on particular

aspects of behavior, including cognitive, social, biologic, developmental, clinical, and

so on. As I have already noted, humor touches on all of these areas. Psychologistsview themselves as scientists, taking an empirical and predominantly quantitative

research approach to test theories and hypotheses about behavior. Psychologicalresearch methods include controlled laboratory experiments in which one variable is

manipulated to observe its effect on other variables, as well as correlational approachesin which variables are operationally defined and quantified and their association across

individuals is assessed.

As Jon Roeckelein (2002) has noted, one of the curiosities of the psychology of

humor is that, although it comprises quite a sizable research literature, it has gone

largely unnoticed in mainstream psychology up to now. In a search of PsycINFO, a

database of psychology publications, using the keywords humor, humour, laughter, irony,

and other closely related terms, I found references to just over 3400 peer-reviewed

journal articles published as of early 2006. Despite the extensiveness of this research

literature, however, it is rarely mentioned in undergraduate textbooks or psychologyreference works. Roeckelein (2002) examined 136 introductory psychology texts pub-lished between 1885 and 1996, and found only three all published before 1930

that made any reference to humor or related topics. Although humor is occasionallymentioned in more advanced undergraduate texts devoted to particular branches of

psychology (e.g., social, developmental), the treatment is usually only brief and super-ficial. Roeckelein also observed that this topic receives only rare and cursory mention

in scholarly reference works such as the Annual Review ofPsychology. The most recent

two-volume edition of The Handbook of Social Psychology (Gilbert, Fiske, and Lindzey,

1998), a major reference work for social psychologists spanning more than 2000 pages,contains only a single brief mention, although early editions contained a whole

chapter on humor, laughter, and play (Berlyne, 1969; Flugel, 1954).

Two main reasons have been suggested for this general neglect ofhumor in main-

stream psychology until now. First, given its essentially nonserious nature and asso-

ciation with fun and mirth, some researchers may have seen it as too frivolous and

unimportant a subject for serious academic study. However, as Berlyne (1969) pointedout more than 35 years ago, the apparent frivolity of humor is a good reason why it

should receive more, rather than less, research attention than other psychologicalbehaviors whose adaptive functions are easier to understand. The fact that all humansocieties expend a great deal of time and energy engaging in humor and laughter,

while the purpose of this activity is not immediately obvious, makes this a puzzle

worthy of careful and systematic study.

Several decades of research effort since Berlyne's time, approaching the subject

from a number of psychological perspectives, are beginning to give us some intrigu-

ing answers to this puzzle. For example, recent evolutionary models suggest that

humor and laughter may have played an important role in the formation and


maintenance of social groups in our evolutionary history, and therefore have inter-

esting implications for our understanding of human verbal and nonverbal communi-

cation and social organization (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Panksepp, 2000). Thus, the

view of humor as too frivolous for serious study is becoming increasingly difficult to

defend.

Fortunately, the idea that psychologists should concentrate only on "serious"

topics like psychopathology and human deficits seems to be waning in recent years,

as demonstrated by such developments as the "positive psychology" movement, with

its emphasis on the study of human strengths and positive emotions (Aspinwall and

Staudinger, 2003; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). One would hope that psy-

chology has moved beyond the situation of 30 years ago when Walter O'Connell

(1976) lamented that "anyone embarking upon research into the origins and devel-

opment of humor will, more often than not, be seen as a deviant and a freak, one whodoes not take psychology seriously enough" (p. 316).

A second possible reason for the general neglect of humor, suggested by Dixon

(1980), is the sheer elusiveness of the phenomena under investigation. The diversity

of stimuli and situations that evoke mirth, the lack of a precise definition of the

concept, the multiplicity of theories that have been proposed to account for it, and

the difficulties one encounters in trying to capture and study it in controlled experi-

ments in the laboratory may have caused researchers to shy away from it as a subject

of investigation.

Once again, however, the complexity and elusiveness of the topic is all the more

reason for researchers to apply their efforts, skills, and ingenuity to an understandingof it. Furthermore, as I will try to demonstrate in this book, the cumulative efforts of

many researchers over the past few decades have brought increasing focus to the field,

generating several fairly circumscribed theories with testable hypotheses and devel-

oping practical and reliable research methods for investigating them. Thus, althoughit certainly continues to pose interesting challenges for researchers to tackle, humorno longer seems to be such an intractable topic of study.

In addition to psychology, humor is also a topic of study in a number of other

disciplines, including anthropology, biology, computer science, linguistics, literary and

cultural studies, neuroscience, philosophy, religious studies, and sociology. There are

even scholarly works on the mathematics of humor (Casadonte, 2003; Paulos, 1980).

The International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS) is a multidisciplinary organiza-tion ofhumor scholars that holds annual conferences and publishes a scholarly journalentitled Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research (for more information, see the

ISHS website, available at www.hnu.edu/ishs). At various points in this book, I will

touch on some of the contributions of these other disciplines that have augmentedthe research of psychologists.

In addition, humor is a topic of interest to many professional practitioners in

health care (e.g., physicians, nurses, occupational and physical therapists), counseling,social work, education, and business. The Association for Applied and TherapeuticHumor (AATH) is a professional society of individuals from many of these profes-sions who are interested in applications of humor in their respective fields (available

CONCLUSION

at www.aath.org). Besides addressing psychologists, an additional purpose of this bookis therefore to introduce interested individuals from these other academic disciplines

and professions to the methods, theories, and empirical findings of psychologicalresearch on humor.

CONCLUSION

In summary, humor is a universal human activity that most people experience

many times over the course of a typical day and in all sorts of social contexts. There

is a good deal of evidence suggesting that humor and laughter have an evolutionary

origin and therefore confer adaptive benefits. At the same time, there are obviously

important cultural influences on the way humor is used and the situations that are

considered appropriate for laughter. From a psychological perspective, humor is

essentially a positive emotion called mirth, which is typically elicited in social con-

texts by a cognitive appraisal process involving the perception of playful, nonserious

incongruity, and which is expressed by the facial and vocal behavior of laughter. In

social interactions, humor takes on many different forms, including canned jokes,

spontaneous witticisms, and unintentionally funny utterances and actions.

Psychological functions of humor include the cognitive and social benefits of the

positive emotion of mirth, and its uses as a mode of social communication and influ-

ence, and as a way of relieving tension, regulating emotions, and coping with stress.

Popular conceptions of laughter have changed dramatically over the past two or three

centuries, from being viewed as essentially aggressive and somewhat socially inap-

propriate to being seen as positive, psychologically and physically healthy, and socially

desirable. The meaning of the word humor has also evolved from a narrow focus on

benign and sympathetic sources of mirth distinguished from more aggressive types of

wit, to its use as a broad umbrella term to refer to all sources of laughter. Althoughhumor has important psychological functions and touches on all branches of psy-

chology, and there is a sizable and growing research literature on the topic, main-

stream psychology has paid relatively little attention to it until now.

In the next two chapters, I will give an overview of early research in the psy-

chology of humor that was conducted prior to the early 1980s. My review of this

research will be organized around five major theoretical approaches that have their

roots in earlier philosophical conceptualizations of humor and laughter and have been

particularly influential in psychological research over the years. This discussion of the-

ories and early research will provide a background for the remaining chapters, which

will focus particularly on research conducted during the past two decades.

In Chapters 4 to 8, I will explore relevant theories, research approaches, and

empirical findings in the study of humor from the perspective of each of the basic

research domains of psychology, with individual chapters devoted to cognitive, social,

biological, personality, and developmental psychology. Chapters 9 and 10 will focus

on research examining the implications of humor for mental and physical health, cor-

responding to the fields of clinical and health psychology, respectively. Finally, in


Chapter 11,1 will examine theories and research pertaining to potential applications

ofhumor in several applied areas, including psychotherapy and counseling, education,

and industrial-organizational psychology. By the end of the book, I hope it will be

evident that the study of humor has relevance to every area of the discipline.

It has often been noted that the academic study of humor is not in itself very

funny, and that nothing kills a joke like analyzing it. As McComas (1923) observed,

"he who approaches laughter upon science bent will find it no laughing matter"

(p. 45). Journalists reporting on the annual conferences of ISHS often take delight in

pointing out the apparent irony of scholars presenting very weighty and unfunnyresearch papers on the subject of humor. There is no reason, though, why a scholarly

work on humor needs to be funny any more than studies of human sexuality should

be titillating or depression research should be gloomy. In my experience, humor schol-

ars, while taking their research seriously, tend to be just as funny as anyone else, or

perhaps even more so, in their everyday lives.

In keeping with a long-standing tradition of scholarly books on humor, I there-

fore warn the reader at the outset that you are not likely to find this book particularly

funny. However, I do hope you will find it interesting and informative, and that it will

pique your curiosity and eagerness to engage in further study of this intriguing topic.

CHAPTER

Theories and Early

Research I: Psychoanalytic and

Superiority Theories

V V hat are the mental processes involved

in "getting a joke" or perceiving something to be funny? What are the elements that

need to be present (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions) for humor and laughterto occur? Why is humor so enjoyable, and what motivates us to engage in it? These

sorts of questions have perplexed thinkers for centuries, and numerous theories of

humor have been proposed by philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and other theo-

rists (for more detailed discussion, see Keith-Spiegel, 1972; Roeckelein, 2002). Greig

(1923) listed 88 different theories, although he acknowledged that many of them dif-

fered from one another in only minor ways. In this chapter and the next, I will focus

on five general theoretical approaches that have been most influential in psychologi-cal humor research, namely, psychoanalytic, superiority/disparagement, arousal,

incongruity, and reversal theory. The first two will be reviewed in the present chapter,

and the remaining three in the next one.

Theories are a way of organizing information and seeking to explain phenomenain a parsimonious way. Theories are not judged so much on the basis of whether theyare right or wrong, but on the basis of their usefulness in accounting for phenomenaand generating testable hypotheses. Thus, good theories have "heuristic" value in sug-

gesting directions for research. A good theory is one that is clearly defined and well

specified. A theory should define the conditions that are both necessary and sufficient

for a given phenomenon to occur. A good theory is also potentially falsifiable. In other

31

THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I

words, it makes predictions which, if proven untrue, require a rejection, or at least a

modification, of the theory.

Unfortunately, most of the general theories of humor that have been proposeddo not meet all these stringent criteria. They often use rather vaguely defined con-

cepts, are unable to specify all the necessary and sufficient conditions for humor, and

are not falsifiable, since a way can typically be found to account for any discrepant

research findings. Nonetheless, different humor theories are useful for suggesting par-

ticular avenues for research. In many ways, the different theories are like the six blind

men and the elephant, each ofwhom felt a different part of the animal and came awaywith a different conclusion about what an elephant is like (Berger, 1995). Thus, each

theory accounts for some aspects or types of humor, but fails to give a complete

picture. To gain a broad understanding of humor, we need to combine insights from

all the different theories.

My review of theoretical issues in these two chapters is also an opportunity to

provide an overview of the early psychological humor research that was generated

by each theory. In these two chapters I will focus particularly on research conducted

prior to the early 1980s, to set the stage for the discussion of more recent investiga-

tions in subsequent chapters. As we will see, interest in the various theoretical

approaches has shifted over time, with different theories being particularly popular at

different times. This changing popularity of various humor theories parallels the rise

and fall of broader theoretical approaches, research methodologies, and research

topics that have gone in and out of fashion throughout the history of psychology as

a whole.

Thus, the psychoanalytic approach to humor predominated in the research of the

1940s and 1950s and had largely disappeared by the 1980s, reflecting the rise and fall

of psychoanalytic theory during that time in psychology as a whole. In the 1960s and

1970s, interest among social psychologists in the roles of physiological arousal and

cognitive appraisal processes in emotion was reflected in the revival of arousal-based

theories of humor. The popularity of research on aggression around the same time

also contributed to a renewed interest in superiority theories, which view humor as a

form of aggression. With the rise of cognitive approaches to psychology in the 1970s

(when computers had become widely accessible and began to be viewed as a model

ofhuman information processing), cognitively oriented incongruity theories ofhumoralso began to be popular.

Today, with the cognitive approach dominating all areas of psychology and related

disciplines, cognitive theories of humor tend to predominate. However, as we will see

throughout this book, many of the themes from each of the traditional theories con-

tinue to influence research today. As in other areas of contemporary psychology, in

humor research we are seeing a movement away from "grand theories" that attemptto explain all aspects of humor toward smaller "mini-theories" that focus on more cir-

cumscribed aspects (e.g., teasing, irony). Researchers today also tend to draw on a

variety of theoretical influences to develop their models and hypotheses, rather than

remaining committed to a single traditional theoretical approach.

PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY


Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic view of humor was by far the most influential

theory in psychological humor research during the first half of the twentieth century,a period when Freudian theory was quite prominent in psychology as a whole. Freud's

general theory of psychology posited that each of us embodies a seething cauldron of

conflicting motives and desires (Freud, 1935). Childish, immature, and largely un-

conscious sexual and aggressive (libidinal) drives, residing in the id, seek instant grat-

ification and expression on the basis of the pleasure principle. The superego, which

incorporates the demands and dictates of society as embodied in the internalized

parents, strongly opposes the impulses of the id. The ego, functioning on the reality

principle, attempts to find some adaptive compromise among the demands of the

id, the superego, and the real world, employing a variety of more or less adaptivedefense mechanisms to protect itself from the otherwise overwhelming anxiety that

arises from these conflicting forces. Early in his writing career, Freud turned his atten-

tion to the role of humor in this psychological drama. Freud's theoretical writings on

humor are contained in two publications: the book Jokes and Their Relation to the

Unconscious (Freud, 1960 [1905]), and a short paper simply entitled "Humour" (Freud,

1928).

Overview of the Theory

From the writer and popular philosopher Herbert Spencer (1860), Freud bor-

rowed the idea that the purpose of laughter is to release excess nervous energy. In this

view, when energy that has built up in the nervous system is no longer needed, it must

be released in some way, and laughter is one way for this to occur. According to Freud,

there are three different types or categories of laughter-related phenomena: (1) wit

or jokes, (2) humor, and (3) the comic. Each of these involves a different mechanism

by which psychic energy is saved or economized and is consequently dissipated in the

form of laughter. Jokes (or wit) make use of a number of clever cognitive "jokework"

techniques, such as displacement, condensation, unification, and indirect representa-

tion, that serve as a kind of distraction to the superego, allowing unconscious aggres-sive and sexual impulses arising from the id (which would normally be repressed) to

be briefly expressed and enjoyed. The inhibitory energy that would normally be

required to repress these libidinal impulses becomes briefly redundant as a result of

the joke, and it is this energy that is released in the form of laughter. Freud referred

to the release of libidinal (sexual or aggressive) drive as the tendentious element of

jokes, while the cognitive techniques involved in the jokework were called the non-

tendentious elements. Thus, according to Freud, the reason we enjoy jokes so much is

that they enable us to experience for a moment the illicit pleasure derived from

releasing some of our primitive sexual and aggressive impulses. We do not feel guilty

about this, because our superego (conscience) is temporarily distracted by the clever


cognitive trick included in the joke, and we are often not even consciously aware of

the degree to which the joke contains such aggressive and sexual themes.

These ideas can be illustrated with the following joke (from McGhee, 1979,

p. 9):

One bachelor asked another, "How did you like your stay at the nudist camp?"

"Well," he answered, "It was okay after a while. The first three days were the hardest."

The jokework here involves the cognitive effort required to detect the double meaningof the last word in the joke, which can refer either to the difficulty of the experience

or to the man getting an erection. The initial interpretation of the word implies a

negative connotation, but the second one reveals that the experience was actually sex-

ually arousing and enjoyable. According to Freudian theory, this clever play on words

diverts our attention from the fact that the joke has allowed us to vicariously enjoythe erotic pleasure of this sexually inexperienced man ("bachelor") who finds himself

surrounded by naked women. The psychic energy that our conscience would nor-

mally employ to suppress such illicit pleasure becomes momentarily redundant, and

it is therefore diverted to fuel the activity of laughter.

As another example, consider the following joke (also taken from McGhee, 1979,

p. 9):

Mr. Brown: "This is disgusting. I just found out that the janitor has made love to every woman in

the building except one."

His wife: "Oh, it must be that stuck-up Mrs. Johnson on the third floor."

Here the jokework involves the mental process of pursuing the inference of the wife's

seemingly off-hand comment to its logical conclusion: she herself has had a sexual

liaison with the janitor. Although the tendentious element in this joke again appears

initially to be a sexual one, a closer examination reveals that the pleasure for the lis-

tener actually derives more from aggression than sex. We take aggressive delight in

laughing at the cuckolding of the hapless husband, as well as the stupidity of the wife,

who reveals her unfaithfulness to her husband in such a naive manner, and will likely

soon suffer the consequences of his jealous anger. Again, the cleverness of the logical

processes involved in interpreting the joke enables us to distract our attention from

the fact that we are deriving pleasure from other people's pain and stupidity, an activ-

ity that would normally cause us to feel somewhat guilty.

In summary, for a joke to be effective, there are two important requirements: it

must involve a clever use of jokework, and it must allow for the expression of some

repressed sexual or aggressive impulse. Either of these elements alone may be pleas-

urable, but neither is likely to be viewed as truly funny.

Although Freud believed that most jokes involve this release of sexual or aggres-sive drives, he tentatively suggested that there may be some non-aggressive and non-

sexual ("non-tendentious" or "innocent") jokes in which the enjoyment is derived onlyfrom clever cognitive processes (jokework) that enable us momentarily to regress to

less logical and rational (i.e., more childish) modes of thinking. However, some

authors such as Grotjahn (1966) and Gruner (1978) have pointed out that Freud was


unable to provide any examples of such innocent jokes (a fact that Freud himself

acknowledged). These theorists argued that this is because no such jokes actually exist:

all jokes are tendentious.

Freud's second category of laughter-related phenomena, which was the only one

that he referred to as humor, occurs in stressful or aversive situations in which personswould normally experience negative emotions such as fear, sadness, or anger, but the

perception of amusing or incongruous elements in the situation provides them with

an altered perspective on it and enables them to avoid experiencing this negativeaffect. The pleasure of humor (in this restricted meaning of the word) arises from the

release of energy that would have been associated with this painful emotion but has

now become redundant. For example, the individual who is able to "see the fannyside of things" despite having recently suffered a serious financial loss would be

demonstrating this kind of humor. This type of humor is especially seen in the ability

to laugh at one's own foibles, weaknesses, and social blunders. Thus, humor referred

specifically to the tension-release function of mirth and laughter, and its use in copingwith stress, as discussed in the previous chapter.

It is important to note that Freud, like most of his contemporaries, drew a sharpdistinction between humor and wit. Humor referred to a benign and sympatheticamusement at the ironical aspects of the misfortunes of life, whereas wit (which he

identified primarily with canned jokes) was more aggressive and less clearly psycho-

logically healthy. As we saw in the previous chapter, since Freud's time the word humor

has evolved into a broad umbrella term that encompasses all types of laughter-evoking

phenomena, including aggressive teasing, sexual jokes, and slapstick comedy, as well

as irony. This difference in terminology can be very confusing, and it has led manyresearchers and theorists to confuse Freud's theory of wit or jokes with his theory of

humor. I will have more to say about this when I discuss the relation between humorand mental health in Chapter 9.

According to Freud, humor (in this old-fashioned narrow sense) is one of a

number of different types of defense mechanisms that enable us to face difficult situ-

ations without becoming overwhelmed by unpleasant emotion. Indeed, according to

Freud, humor is the "highest of the defense mechanisms," since it enables the indi-

vidual to avoid unpleasant emotions while still maintaining a realistic view of the sit-

uation. To Freud (1928), humor is very beneficial:

Like wit and the comic, humor has in it a liberating element. But it has also something fine and ele-

vating, which is lacking in the other two ways of deriving pleasure from intellectual activity. Obvi-

ously, what is fine about it is the triumph of narcissism, the ego's victorious assertion of its own

invulnerability. It refuses to be hurt by the arrows of reality or to be compelled to suffer. It insists

that it is impervious to wounds dealt by the outside world, in fact, that these are merely occasions

for affording it pleasure.

Whereas jokes and the comic are commonly enjoyed by nearly everyone, Freud (1928,

p. 220) described humor as "a rare and precious gift" which is possessed only by a few

lucky people. Interestingly, Freud (1928, p. 220) saw humor as the action of the

parental superego attempting to comfort and reassure the anxious ego, asserting


"Look here! This is all this seemingly dangerous world amounts to. Child's play the

very thing to jest about!" This is a much more positive view of the superego than the

harsh, punitive taskmaster that is typically portrayed in Freudian theory. As we will

see in Chapter 9, Freud's conception of humor (in this narrow sense) is closely related

to contemporary views of humor as a way of coping with stress and regulatingemotions.

Whereas wit and humor are verbal, Freud's third category, the comic, refers to

nonverbal sources of mirth, such as slapstick comedy, circus clowns, and the pompousperson slipping on the banana peel. In such situations, according to Freud, the

observer mobilizes a certain amount of mental or ideational energy in anticipation of

what is expected to happen. When the expected does not occur, this mental energybecomes redundant and is released in laughter. Freud suggested that the comic

involves delighted laughter at childish behavior in oneself or others, which he

described as "the regained lost laughter of childhood" (Freud, 1960 [1905], p. 224).

Comical situations may also contain some tendentious elements, allowing for the

pleasurable release of libidinal energy. The person slipping on the banana peel is a

good example. The fact that he is pompous and ostentatious makes the scene all the

more amusing because it permits the expression of some aggressive impulses. It would

not be nearly as funny if the mishap occurred to a small child or to a person for whomwe felt some sympathy. Thus, like wit, the comic often contains at least a tinge of

aggression.

Empirical Investigations

A variety of hypotheses were derived from Freudian theory (particularly the

theory of jokes or wit), and these were investigated in a large number of early psy-

chological studies. Kline (1977) listed several hypotheses having to do with individ-

ual differences. For example, based on Freudian theory, individuals finding aggressiveor sexual jokes funniest would be expected to be those whose aggression or sexualityis normally repressed. Psychopaths should not find jokes amusing, since they have no

need to lift their repression in this way. Witty people should tend to have powerfulunconscious aggressive drives and to be more neurotic than the normal population.

Moreover, highly repressed people should prefer jokes with more complex jokeworkrather than "simple" jokes.

In the 1950s, psychologist Jacob Levine and his colleagues published a numberof studies investigating these sorts of hypotheses. Levine and Redlich (1955) presentedan anxiety-reduction theory of humor, in which they reconceptualized Freud's ideas

about the release of psychic energy in terms of relief from anxiety. They suggestedthat jokes that are perceived by an individual as being particularly funny touch on

anxiety-arousing themes, such as aggression and sexuality, which are normally

repressed or suppressed. Thus, a joke initially evokes feelings of anxiety due to its

libidinal themes, and these feelings are then suddenly reduced by the punch line. The

pleasure of a joke derives from this sudden reduction in anxiety, and the greater this

reduction, the greater the pleasure and mirth. If the anxiety produced by the joke is


too great, however, the punch line will be inadequate for reducing it, and the responsewill be one of aversion, disgust, shame, or even horror. On the other hand, if the indi-

vidual experiences no arousal of anxiety with a particular joke, the response will be

one of indifference.

To investigate these hypotheses, Redlich, Levine, and Sohler (1951) developedthe Mirth Response Test as a method of assessing the types of humor that individu-

als prefer and thereby drawing inferences about their basic needs and conflicts. This

test consisted of a series of 36 cartoons that were judged to tap a wide range of aggres-sive and sexual themes. Research participants were presented with each cartoon indi-

vidually, and their spontaneous verbal and nonverbal responses were noted. Jokes that

elicited mirth and enjoyment were assumed to contain themes relating to the indi-

vidual's underlying needs and conflicts, whereas those that were viewed with indif-

ference presumably contained themes that were irrelevant to the individual. Negative

responses to jokes, particularly those associated with a failure to "get" the joke, were

seen as indicative of powerful and threatening unresolved needs or conflicts in the

individual.

In one typical study, Levine and Abelson (1959) used the Mirth Response Test to

compare hospitalized psychiatric patients with schizophrenia, patients with anxiety

disorders, and normal controls. The cartoons were first rated by a number of psy-

chiatrists for the degree to which they evoked potentially disturbing themes such as

overt aggression and sexuality. Among the psychiatric patients (who presumably had

a greater number of unresolved conflicts and repressed impulses), mirth responsesto the cartoons were strongly negatively related to these clinician ratings of dis-

turbingness, the least disturbing cartoons being viewed as most humorous and enjoy-

able. In contrast, the nonpatient controls showed a curvilinear relationship between

their mirth responses and the disturbingness of the cartoons, preferring those

that were moderately disturbing and disliking those that were either very low or very

high on this dimension. These results were taken to be supportive of psychoanalytic

theory.

Another early humor test based on Freudian theory was the Wit and Humor

Appreciation Test (WHAT) developed by Walter O'Connell (1960). This test was

composed of 30 jokes, 10 of which were judged by a panel of clinical psychologists to

represent hostile wit, 10 nonsense wit, and 10 humor (in the narrow Freudian sense).

Research participants were instructed to rate the degree to which they liked or dis-

liked each joke. In several studies with this test, O'Connell attempted to show that

better adjusted, less hostile individuals are more likely to enjoy humor and nonsense

wit than hostile wit. However, the findings were only partially supportive of these

hypotheses (O'Connell, 1969, 1976).

One theoretical difficulty with this test seems to be that, since Freud identified

jokes with wit, which he conceptualized quite differently from humor, it was incon-

sistent with his theory to attempt to assess humor using jokes. Furthermore, as we

will see in later chapters, the degree to which people use humor in healthy versus

unhealthy ways in their daily lives has been found to be generally unrelated to their

enjoyment of different types of jokes or cartoons. Consequently, joke appreciation


tests do not seem to be very useful for assessing these mental health-related dimen-

sions ofhumor; self-report measures developed for this purpose appear to have greater

validity (e.g., R. A. Martin et al., 2003).

A number of early studies examined Freud's hypothesis that the enjoyment of

hostile jokes is related to repressed aggressive drives. Contrary to psychoanalytic

theory, however, most of this research found that aggressive humor is enjoyed most

by individuals who express hostility and aggression openly rather than by those who

suppress or repress it. For example, Byrne (1956) presented a series of cartoons depict-

ing hostile or nonhostile themes to male psychiatric patients who had been rated by

hospital staff as either overtly hostile, covertly hostile (passive-aggressive), or non-

hostile (compliant). Overtly and covertly hostile patients, as compared to nonhostile

ones, rated the hostile cartoons as funnier. Thus, individuals who exhibited hostile

behavior in their interactions with others were more likely to enjoy cartoons that

reflected hostile themes. Byrne argued that these results contradicted Freudian theoryand were more consistent with behavioral learning theory. According to learning

theory, aggressive behavior is learned through positive reinforcement, and aggressive

individuals would therefore be expected to find aggressive humor to be reinforcing

and enjoyable. Similar findings were obtained by Ullmann and Lim (1962). Taking a

somewhat different approach, Epstein and Smith (1956) also found no correlation

between the degree to which subjects repress hostility and their enjoyment of car-

toons containing hostile or aggressive themes.

Other investigators examined the Freudian hypothesis that individuals who

repress their sexual drives should be more likely to enjoy sexual humor. As with the

research on aggressive humor, the results tended to contradict psychoanalytic theory,

indicating instead that subjects who are less sexually inhibited are more likely to enjoysexual jokes and cartoons. For example, Ruch and Hehl (1988) found that sexual jokes

and cartoons were rated as significantly funnier by both male and female participants

who had more positive attitudes toward sexuality, greater sexual experience and enjoy-

ment, higher sexual libido and excitement, and lower prudishness (cf. also Prerost,

1983, 1984). Interestingly, more sexually active individuals were found to enjoy all

types of humor, regardless of content, more than did less sexually active individuals.

Thus, contrary to Freudian theory, the expression and enjoyment of sexual activities,

rather than the repression of sexuality, seems to be associated with enjoyment of

humor generally and sexual content humor in particular.

A study by Holmes (1969) bears on the hypothesis that psychopaths will show

less enjoyment of humor because they are less prone to inhibit unacceptable impulses.

Contrary to psychoanalytic predictions, this study found that men with greater psy-

chopathic tendencies, as shown by higher scores on the psychopathic deviate (PD)scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), were quicker at

understanding cartoons than were less psychopathic men, and enjoyed sexual and

hostile cartoons more than nonsense cartoons. Thus, once again, the expression rather

than the inhibition of impulses seems to be related to the enjoyment of humor, and

particularly humor containing sexual and aggressive themes.

However, Rosenwald (1964) criticized the rationale of these studies, arguing that

overt expression of an impulse such as aggression does not necessarily mean that there


are no inhibitions against that impulse. He suggested that enjoyment of a joke does

not simply reflect unconscious conflicts or anxiety associated with the theme of the

joke, but rather the degree to which the individual is able to relax inhibitions or

defenses. If a person rigidifies inhibitions in response to a joke, he or she will not find

it amusing, but if the person is able momentarily to release inhibitory energies, the

joke will be found to be funny. In support of these hypotheses, Rosenwald found that

male high school students with flexible inhibitions against aggression as measured

by the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) enjoyed hostile humor more than did

either those with overly constricted inhibitions or those with impulsivity and a lack

of inhibitions. These findings were taken to be supportive of Freudian theory. Overall,

though, most of the correlational studies provided little support for the hypothesisthat the enjoyment of aggressive and sexual humor is associated with repression of

the corresponding drives.

Other researchers took an experimental approach to test various hypothesesderived from psychoanalytic theory. Singer, Gollob, and Levine (1967) hypothesized

that, when people's inhibitions regarding the expression of aggression are increased,

this will result in a decreased ability to enjoy aggressive humor, but will not af-

fect their enjoyment of nonaggressive humor. To mobilize research participants'

aggression-related inhibitions, they had a group of subjects study drawings by Goyadepicting extreme brutality and sadism, while control subjects viewed benign Goyaworks. All participants then rated the funniness of 12 cartoons, four of which were

considered to be nonsense cartoons, four portraying mild interpersonal aggression,

and four depicting high interpersonal aggression. As predicted, the participants whohad viewed the disturbing art (and in whom inhibitions against aggression had pre-

sumably been mobilized) rated the highly aggressive cartoons as significantly less

funny in comparison to the control subjects, whereas there were no differences

between the two groups in their enjoyment of the nonsense and mildly aggressive car-

toons. These results appeared to provide support for the Freudian view that increased

mobilization of inhibitions concerning aggression will result in decreased enjoymentof aggressive humor.

As we saw, Freud suggested that the jokework involved in successful aggressive

jokes distracts the listeners so that they are not fully aware of the aggressive content

at which they are laughing. Based on this view, Gollob and Levine (1967) hypothe-sized that if people focus their attention on the fact that humor expresses aggressive

impulses, their inhibitions will be mobilized and they will then be relatively unable

to enjoy the humor. They had a group of female subjects make ratings of the funni-

ness of a number of cartoons before and after focusing their attention on the cartoon

content by asking them to explain why the cartoons were funny. As predicted, highly

aggressive cartoons were given significantly lower ratings on the post-test than were

low-aggressive or nonsense cartoons, presumably because the act of explaining the

cartoons drew attention to their aggressiveness and thereby circumvented the dis-

tracting effects of the clever jokework. These results were viewed as supportive of

Freudian theory.

If jokes provide an outlet for sexual and aggressive drives, as suggested by psy-

choanalytic theory, then they should be particularly enjoyed when drives associated


with the relevant themes have previously been activated. Additionally, these jokes

should have a cathartic effect, reducing the levels of previously aroused drives. Anumber of experiments were conducted to test these hypotheses. For example,Dworkin and Efran (1967) aroused feelings of anger (i.e., aggression) in male under-

graduate participants by having an experimenter treat them in a very rude and criti-

cal manner. The participants were then asked to listen to recordings of either hostile

or nonhostile humor or a nonhumorous tape, and to rate these stimuli for funniness.

A separate control group of subjects rated the humor without having been angered

by the experimenter. Mood adjective checklists were completed before and after the

humor rating task.

As predicted, participants who had been angered rated the hostile humor as sig-

nificantly funnier than did those who had not been angered, whereas no difference

was found between the two groups in their ratings of the nonhostile humor. In addi-

tion, exposure to both types of humor led to a significant reduction in self-reported

feelings of hostility and anxiety in the angered subjects, whereas no change in moodwas observed in the angered subjects who listened to the nonhumorous recordings.

Thus, activation of angry feelings led to greater appreciation for hostile (but not non-

hostile) humor, while both hostile and nonhostile humor led to a reduction in angry

feelings. The latter finding was only partially supportive of Freudian theory, since this

theory would predict a greater reduction in anger with the hostile than with the non-

hostile humor. Subsequent attempts to replicate these findings, however, were mixed.

Some studies similarly found increased enjoyment of hostile humor in research par-

ticipants following exposure to a hostility-arousing situation (e.g., Prerost and Brewer,

1977; Strickland, 1959), but these findings were not replicated in others (e.g., LandyandMettee, 1969; Singer, 1968).

Other experiments examined the effects of humor on aggressive behavior (rather

than just reported feelings and humor ratings) following exposure to a hostility-

arousing situation. Aggressive behavior was assessed in a variety of ways, includingthe severity of electric shocks that subjects administered to someone who had previ-

ously insulted them (under the guise of research on the effects of electric shocks on

learning). Unfortunately, these experiments also yielded inconsistent results. In

support of Freudian theory, some showed that previously angered subjects were less

likely to behave aggressively toward the insulting person following exposure to hostile

as opposed to nonhostile humor (e.g., Baron, 1978a; Leak, 1974). Others, however,

found a reduction in aggression following the nonhostile instead of the hostile humor

(e.g., Baron and Ball, 1974). Yet other experiments showed the opposite pattern of

effects, with an increase in aggressive behavior occurring after exposure to hostile

humor (e.g., Baron, 1978b; Berkowitz, 1970; Mueller and Donnerstein, 1983). Thus,evidence for cathartic effects of hostile humor on aggressive behavior is inconclusive

to say the least.

Other researchers examined the effects of sexual arousal on the enjoyment of

sexual humor. For example, Strickland (1959) had male research participants rate the

funniness of a number of cartoons containing sexual, hostile, or neutral ("nonsense")

themes after they had either been insulted and criticized by the experimenter (hostile


group), or shown a series of photographs of nude females (sexual group). A control

group of participants rated the cartoons immediately after being brought into the

experimental situation. The results indicated that, as predicted, participants who had

been in the hostility-arousing situation gave significantly higher funniness ratings for

the hostile cartoons than for the sexual or nonsense cartoons, whereas those who had

been in the sexually-arousing situation gave significantly higher funniness ratings for

the sexual cartoons than for the other two types of cartoons.

However, in a study with a very similar design, Byrne (1961) did not replicate

these findings. Instead, he found that hostile cartoons were rated as most funny by

participants in all three conditions. In another experiment, Lamb (1968) found that

participants exposed to sexually arousing photographs showed greater appreciationfor all types of cartoons (hostile and neutral as well as sexual), in comparison with

those who were not sexually aroused. Thus, as with the aggression research, studies

of the cathartic effects of sexual humor on sexual arousal produced contradictory and

inconclusive results.

Whereas the preceding research investigated hypotheses derived from Freudian

theory by focusing on participants' appreciation or enjoyment of humorous stimuli, a

study conducted by Ofra Nevo and Baruch Nevo (1983) looked at humor production.

Male high school students were presented with a series of drawings depicting one

person behaving in a frustrating way toward another, and were asked to generateverbal responses that might be given by the recipient of the frustrating behavior. Half

of the participants were instructed to try to make their responses as humorous as pos-

sible, while no mention of humor was made in the instructions to the other half.

Experimenter ratings of the responses revealed that the humorous responses, com-

pared to the nonhumorous ones, contained significantly more aggression and sexual

themes, as predicted by psychoanalytic theory. The relatively high frequency of sexual

content was especially striking in view of the fact that the pictures did not contain

obvious sexual themes. In addition, the authors noted that many of the jokework tech-

niques described by Freud were observed in the humorous responses, including dis-

placement, play on words, absurdity and fantasy, and representation by the opposite.

The authors concluded that the "subjects applied Freud as if they had read him!"

(p. 192). Similar findings were also reported in a more recent study by Avner Ziv and

Orit Gadish (1990) in which male and female participants were asked to generateeither humorous or nonhumorous stories in response to TAT pictures. Once again,

the humorous stories, compared to the nonhumorous ones, contained significantly

more aggressive and sexual elements.

Evaluation

As this brief review of the early research shows, the large number of studies con-

ducted to test hypotheses derived from the psychoanalytic theory of jokes producedlimited and inconsistent supportive evidence. Although there was some evidence that

people find aggressive jokes less funny when their attention is drawn to the aggres-sive nature of the humor, little consistent support was found for the hypotheses that


individuals who habitually repress sexual or aggressive drives show greater enjoymentfor jokes containing such themes; that arousal of sexual and aggressive drives leads to

increased enjoyment of drive-related jokes; or that exposure to aggressive or sexual

jokes has a cathartic effect, decreasing drive arousal. On the other hand, some supportfor Freudian theory was found in research showing increased aggressive and sexual

themes in participants' responses when they are instructed to generate humor. Apartfrom the inconsistency of the research evidence, the "hydraulic model" of psychic

energy on which Freudian theory is built, viewing laughter as a way of "burning off"

excess tension, is not consistent with our modern understanding of the nervous

system. Consequently, the psychoanalytic theory of humor (like Freudian theory in

general) has been largely abandoned by empirical researchers since the 1980s,

although some further theoretical work has appeared in the psychoanalytic literature

(e.g., Sanville, 1999).

It is important to note, however, that most of this early research focused only on

Freud's theory of jokes (or wit) and not his theory of humor (in the old-fashioned

sense). Part of the reason for this was methodological, since almost all the research

made use of jokes and cartoons (which are also essentially a type of joke) as stimuli.

Since Freud's theory of humor does not apply to jokes, these sorts of stimuli could

not be used to test hypotheses about humor. As we will see in Chapter 9, more recent

research evidence for the role of humor in mental health and coping with stress,

although generally not explicitly inspired by Freudian theory, may be viewed as

support for some of Freud's ideas about humor (narrowly defined) as an adaptivedefense mechanism.

It is also worth noting that the concept of defense mechanisms is one psychoan-

alytic idea that continues to be widely accepted by contemporary psychologists who

might not consider themselves to be psychoanalytically oriented. The idea of humoras a mature or healthy defense mechanism (but without the outdated Freudian notions

of energy release through laughter) continues to have credibility (Vaillant, 2000).

Indeed, the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV;American Psychiatric Association, 1994), which is used by psychiatrists and clinical

psychologists to diagnose psychological disorders, contains a section on defense

mechanisms that includes humor as an adaptive or mature defense.

A limitation of Freud's theory is that it does not consider the interpersonal context

and social functions of humor, focusing instead on dynamics taking place within the

individual. Thus, jokes were seen by Freud as serving a primarily intrapsychic func-

tion, enabling the individual to express and enjoy libidinal drives that are normally

repressed by one's own conscience. As we will see in later chapters, humor scholars

have recently begun to focus more on the social aspects of humor, noting that jokes

and other types of humor are essentially a form of communication between people.

Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that the function of jokes may have

more to do with the social expression of topics that are considered taboo by the culture

than with the intrapsychic release of drives. He noted that topics like sex and aggres-sion have great personal relevance to most people, but are considered inappropriatefor discussion in normal discourse. Humor enables people to communicate sexual

SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES

information, attitudes, and emotions in a form that is more socially acceptable because

it implies that the speaker is "only joking" and is therefore not to be taken seriously.

Because the meaning of a humorous communication is inherently ambiguous, peoplecan get away with saying things in a humorous way that they could not express usinga more serious mode of communication.

Similarly, Eliot Oring (1994) suggested that, in addition to sex and aggression,

humor is often used to communicate a variety of topics with which the culture has

some discomfort. For example, he suggested that contemporary American culture is

uncomfortable with the expression of sentimental feelings like affection, tenderness,

admiration, and sympathy, and humor is therefore often used to convey these sorts of

feelings in an indirect way. Examples of this use of humor include "roasts," in which

friends and coworkers humorously belittle the personality, behaviors, and achieve-

ments of an honored guest, and humorous greeting cards, in which insulting messagesare used to indirectly express feelings of affection (e.g., "I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've thought ofyou ... I'd buy some gum"). Although the overt message appears

to be negative, the humorous manner in which it is delivered makes it apparent that

the opposite, more affectionate meaning is actually the intended one. Thus, by focus-

ing on the inherently interpersonal nature of humor, some contemporary theorists

and researchers have reconceptualized Freud's original ideas about intrapsychic func-

tions of humor and applied them to an understanding of its social functions.

Although psychoanalytic theory may not provide a completely satisfactory

account ofhumor (in the broad, modern sense), it did draw attention to certain aspects

that need to be explained in any comprehensive theory. In particular, we note the pre-

dominance of aggressive and sexual themes in most (if not all) jokes, the feelings of

emotional pleasure and enjoyment (i.e., mirth) that are engendered by humor, and

the strong motivation to engage in it. As we will see in later chapters, these aspects

of humor continue to be of great interest to theorists and researchers today.


As we have seen, Freud viewed aggression as an important aspect of jokes, which

he identified with the old concept ofwit. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that muchhumor (broadly defined) is based on aggression and hostility. The aggressive basis of

laughter is evident in ancient writings. Koestler (1964) noted that, of 29 references to

laughter in the Old Testament, most are linked with scorn, derision, mockery, or con-

tempt, and only two are "born out of a joyful and merry heart" (p. 53). The aggres-

sion in humor can be blatant or subtle. Herbert Lefcourt (2001) gives some examplesof the more extremely sadistic or heartless forms of humor. For example, Nazi sol-

diers during World War II, particularly the Gestapo, were known to laugh mirthfully

at the panicky behavior ofJews attempting to flee from them. Anthropologist Colin

Turnbull (1972) described how members of a nomadic mountain tribe in Africa,

during a time of starvation and misery, would laugh uproariously at the suffering of

individuals that would normally be expected to arouse sympathy. In one instance, a


group of people laughed loudly at the spectacle of an elderly blind woman writhing

weakly at the bottom of a canyon after losing her footing on a steep trail and falling

over a cliff.

The aggressive side of humor is also evident in the merciless teasing that chil-

dren often inflict on one another. I remember well a regrettable incident from myown childhood when an overweight girl in the fourth grade fell to the floor after her

chair broke. The ensuing raucous laughter and teasing from the rest of the class con-

tinued for several days afterwards. As every child knows, being laughed at can be

extremely painful and humiliating. At a milder level, a great many of the jokes that

are so popular in our culture quite obviously involve the disparagement of others,

including members of either sex (but most often women), various national or ethnic

groups, or people of low intelligence. Sociologist Christie Davies (1990a) described

how people of every country and region make jokes about members of a particular

nationality or subculture who are considered to be similar yet different enough from

the cultural mainstream to be objects of ridicule.

Overview of the Theories

As we saw in Chapter 1, a long-standing theoretical approach views aggressionof some sort as the essential characteristic of all humor. In this view, humor is actu-

ally a form of aggression. Theories of this kind have been referred to as superiority,

disparagement, aggression, or degradation theories. This is the oldest approach to

humor, dating at least as far back as the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato

(428-348 B.C.) stated that laughter originates in malice. According to him, we laughat what is ridiculous in other people, feeling delight instead of pain when we see even

our friends in misfortune (Plato in Philebus, reprinted in Morreall, 1987). Similarly,

Aristotle (348-322 B.C.) saw comedy as an imitation of people who are worse than the

average and viewed it as a "species of the ugly" (in Poetics, reprinted in Morreall, 1987,

p. 14). According to Aristotle, "people who carry humor to excess are considered

vulgar buffoons. They try to be funny at all costs, and their aim is more to raise a

laugh than to speak with propriety and to avoid giving pain to the butt of their jokes"

(in Nicomachean Ethics, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 15). He evidently did not care

much for it.

The writings of the seventeenth-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes

(1588-1679) further reinforced the general acceptance of the superiority view for

several centuries. According to Hobbes, "the passion of laughter is nothing else but

sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves,

by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly ... It is no

wonder therefore that men take heinously to be laughed at or derided, that is, tri-

umphed over." (in Human Nature, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 20). Thus, humoris thought to result from a sense of superiority derived from the disparagement of

another person or of one's own past blunders or foolishness. Elements of the superi-

ority view continue to be seen in some theories of humor proposed over the past

century (e.g., Bergson, 1911; Leacock, 1935; Ludovici, 1933; Rapp, 1951).


The most outspoken contemporary advocate of this approach is Charles Gruner,a professor of speech communication at the University of Georgia (Gruner, 1978,

1997). Gruner views humor as "playful aggression." It is not "real" aggression, in the

sense that it does not involve physically attacking and injuring people; rather, it is

more like the play fighting of children and young animals. Thus, Gruner emphasizesthe idea that humor is a form of play. In particular, the type of play he has in mind is

a game, competition, or contest, where there are winners and losers. Gruner suggeststhat the enjoyment of humor is akin to the jubilant, triumphant feelings one has after

suddenly winning a very close game after a long and difficult struggle. "Successful

humor," stated Gruner, "like enjoying success in sports and games (including the

games of life), must include 'winning ("getting what we want"), and sudden perceptionof that winning" (Gruner, 1997, p. 9, emphasis in original).

Gruner based his theory on an evolutionary view in which the propensity for com-

petitiveness and aggressiveness is the main characteristic that enabled humans to

survive and flourish. Following Rapp's (1951) phylogenetic (i.e., evolutionary) theory,

Gruner (1978) suggested that laughter originated in the "roar of triumph" followinga hard-fought battle (typically occurring between males). During the course of a phys-ical struggle with another person, much emotional and physical energy is built up, as

adrenaline is pumped into the bloodstream. When the fight ends suddenly, the winner

must dispel this excess tension, and he does so through laughter: he "bares his teeth,

pumps his shoulders, and chops up his breath into grunts and moans, with appropri-ate grimaces" (p. 43). Thus, laughter serves the physiological function of rapidly

restoring homeostasis, as well as the psychological function of signaling victory over

the enemy. (The loser, meanwhile, expels his excess energy by weeping.)

According to Gruner, "the many generations of men who responded to their

sudden victories in violent encounters with roars of triumph, over hundreds of thou-

sands of years, wore a groove, a riverbed, into the collective human unconscious"

(p. 52), and this continues to be the basis of laughter to the present day. This early

precursor of laughter evolved into our modern-day humor. With the evolution of

language in the context of communal living, people were able to begin poking fun

at others with words, rather than relying only on physical aggression. Soon peoplecould use language to ridicule anyone who appeared inferior, such as those with a

physical or mental defect. Today, this form of humor is evident in slapstick comedyand practical jokes, laughter at others' clumsiness and verbal mistakes, laughter at

"dumb blond" jokes, and any jokes that make fun of individuals from other ethnic

groups.Those who disagree with this aggression theory of humor might point to simple

riddles and puns as forms of humor to which it does not seem to apply. These kinds

ofhumor merely involve a play on words and seem to be completely devoid of aggres-sion and hostility. However, according to Gruner, riddles and puns have their origins

in ancient "duels of wits" in which people attempted to display their intellectual supe-

riority over others by means of their facility with words. Still today, creating punsis a way of "beating" others in conversation. This is why people respond to punswith groans, which are seen as an admission of defeat. The person who constantly


interrupts the flow of conversation with puns is often perceived by others as disrup-

tive, frustrating, and distracting, and puns are seen as a way of controlling social inter-

actions. The competitive nature of punning is particularly evident in "punning duels,"

in which two people attempt to outdo one another with exchanges of witty wordplay.Gruner (1997, p. 136) gave the following example:

Bob: The cops arrested a streaker yesterday.

Rob: Could they pin anything on him?

Bob: Naw. The guy claimed he was hauled in on a bum wrap.

Rob: You'd think the case was supported by the bare facts.

Bob: We can probably hear more about the case tonight on the TV nudecast.

Rob: Tomorrow's nudespaper might have more details.

Puns in everyday conversation may be a way of "defeating" the listener, but

canned jokes in which the punch line is based on a pun are seen as a way of enablingthe listener to share feelings of mastery and superiority along with the joke-teller. The

ability to "get the joke" gives the listener a feeling of superiority and victory, pre-

sumably over hypothetical others who might not be able to understand it, perhapsdue to their lower intelligence. Thus, according to Gruner, all jokes, no matter how

seemingly innocent, contain a contest, a winner, and a loser.

Gruner (1997) analyzed a large number of examples of different types of jokes,

demonstrating how each of them may be viewed as an expression of playful aggres-sion. "To understand a piece of humorous material," stated Gruner (1978, p. 14), "it

is necessary only to find out who is ridiculed, how, and why." Thus, he finds aggres-sion in jokes about death, destruction, or disaster; "sick" jokes (such as "dead baby"

jokes and those that followed the Challenger space shuttle disaster); slapstick comedyand children's television cartoons; practical jokes; ethnic and sexist jokes; and so on.

Whereas Freud saw sexuality as a possible joke mechanism that can operate without

any aggression, Gruner argued forcefully that all sexual, sexist, and scatological

("toilet") humor is based on aggression. According to Gruner (1997, p. 109), "'dirty'

jokes differ from 'clean' jokes only in subject matter and language, not in form or

technique; both 'types' of jokes follow the formula of a contest, resulting in both a

winner and a loser." Gruner claimed that he has never encountered a joke or other

laughter-provoking event that cannot be explained by application of his theory, and

at the end of his 1997 book he challenged the reader to try to find one.

What about all the "innocent" or "nonsense" jokes and cartoons that were used

in much of the psychoanalytically inspired research, reviewed earlier, comparing the

effects of hostile versus nonhostile humor? Although he acknowledged that the

aggression in humor can sometimes be quite muted and subtle, Gruner (1997) argued

forcefully that even the most seemingly innocuous jokes contain some element of

aggression. Here his analyses sometimes seem a little forced. For example, he dis-

cussed a published cartoon in which "two tipplers coming home from a wild night on

the town are gaily staggering up and down walls, as well as back and forth across the

sidewalk and street" (p. 162). Although this cartoon seems to be playing in a purelyinnocent way with incongruity and absurdity, Gruner interpreted it as ridiculing


drunkenness: drunks are so oblivious to reality that they don't realize that defying

gravity is impossible and don't stop to think about the dangers involved. In another

example, a cartoon shows a plumber plugging the hole in a water pipe with his finger,

as water pours out his ear. Again, this seems to be merely an innocent and whimsical

exercise in absurdity, but Gruner suggested that the cartoon causes the viewer to laughat the damage being done to the plumber's brain cells by the water going through his

head. Although many of Gruner's analyses seem quite convincing about the aggres-

sive basis of humor, some examples such as these seem rather contrived.

What about self-deprecatory humor? How can laughing at oneself be explained

in terms of superiority theory? Like Hobbes, Gruner responds that we can laugh at

our own past stupidities and failings, feeling superiority over the person we once were

in the past. Furthermore, even in the present, one part of ourselves can laugh at

another part. For example, when I am feeling lazy, I can laugh at the part of me that

is overly ambitious, and when I am in an ambitious mood I can laugh at my lazy self.

We all have multiple roles, mood states, and conflicting personality characteristics,

and a sense of humor is what keeps these many varied aspects of ourselves in balance.

People with no sense of humor are people who are rigid and unidimensional, unable

to see anything funny about themselves or their beliefs. Thus, the disparagement at

the root of humor can be directed at oneself in a healthy manner.

Implications of Superiority/Disparagement Theories

As we saw in Chapter 1, the extremely positive view ofhumor held by most people

today has made the superiority theory very unpopular because of the negative way it

seems to portray humor. Although they might acknowledge that some humor is occa-

sionally aggressive, hostile, and even cruel, most people today wish to believe that

most humor (perhaps particularly their own!) is free of aggression, nonhostile, sym-

pathetic, friendly, and healthy. Psychotherapists, educators, and business consultants

who promote humor for its presumed beneficial qualities (which I will discuss in

Chapter 1 1) often draw a distinction between "laughing at" and "laughing with." Theymay espouse "political correctness" views, regarding ethnic, racist, and sexist humor,like smoking in restaurants, as offensive and inappropriate in polite society. Instead,

they seek to promote the use of more affirming and caring types of humor. However,Gruner argues that such people are simply deluding themselves, denying the reality

of the true source of pleasure underlying their enjoyment of humor. If we try to

eliminate aggression from humor, according to Gruner, we will eliminate humor

altogether.

At the same time, Gruner denies that this view of humor actually paints a nega-tive picture of human nature. He emphasizes that the aggression involved in humor

is just play, a game that should not be taken seriously and is not intended to inflict

actual harm. Individuals who tell ethnic jokes do not necessarily believe the stereo-

types conveyed in their jokes. Gruner (1997) stated that "a stereotype is merely a very

handy kind of shorthand to provide the essential framework for understanding the

content of a joke" (p. 99). Of course, some people who are truly hostile, racist, sexist,


or anti-Semitic might use such jokes as a way of expressing their hostility. But such

people will likely express their attitudes in more direct and openly hostile ways as well.

This does not mean that all people who enjoy such jokes are racist or sexist. A similar

view is expressed by sociologist Christie Davies, who has argued, for example, that

jokes making ran of "Jewish American princesses" (JAPs) are not really based on anti-

Semitism, but are actually affirming of the qualities of Jewish culture (C. Davies,

1990b). Although Davies rejected the superiority/aggression theory ofhumor because

it seems to confuse the playful aggression of humor with "real-world" aggression

(C. Davies, 1990a, p. 326), Gruner argued that these objections reveal a misunder-

standing of his theory.

The more positive perspective on superiority/disparagement theories espoused

by Gruner (as opposed to the negative views held by more traditional superiority the-

orists) has also allowed some authors to emphasize the value ofhumor for self-esteem,

feelings of competence, and personal well-being generally. Rather than focusing on

the hostile, sarcastic, and derisive aspects of humor, these views emphasize the posi-

tive feelings of well-being and efficacy, and the sense of liberation and freedom from

threat experienced when one is able to poke ran at other people or situations that

would normally be viewed as threatening or constrictive. As Holland (1982, p. 45)

pointed out, "we can state the disproportion the other way around, calling the purposeof laughter not so much a glorifying of the self as a minimizing of the distresses men-

acing the self." Similarly, Kallen (1968, p. 59) wrote, "I laugh at that which has endan-

gered or degraded or has fought to suppress, enslave, or destroy what I cherish and

has failed. My laughter signalizes its failure and my own liberation."

Similar views have been expressed by authors taking an existential approach to

humor, who emphasize that it provides one with a sense of liberation or freedom from

the constraints of life. For example, Knox (1951, p. 543) defined humor as "playful

chaos in a serious world," and stated that "humor is a species of liberation, and it is

the liberation that comes to us as we experience the singular delight of beholdingchaos that is playful and make-believe in a world that is serious and coercive" (p. 541).

Similarly, Mindess (1971) noted that our social roles require us to suppress and deny

many of our impulses and desires and to conform to our surroundings and the expec-tations placed on us by others. Although these constraints and routines are necessaryfor survival in our group-based existence, they also lead to feelings of self-alienation

and loss of spontaneity and authenticity. Humor, according to Mindess, is a means of

coping with this paradox, enabling one to gain a sense of freedom, mastery, and self-

respect while continuing to live within the social constraints of human life. In humorwe can temporarily break all the rules, playing with reality in a way that denies the

normal physical and social constraints and ignores the usual consequences of behav-

ior (see also Svebak, 1974b, for a similar view).

This coping aspect of aggressive humor is also evident in the "gallows humor"

described by Obrdlik (1942) as a form of joking used by people in oppressive regimes,such as Nazi-occupied nations during World War II. The term gallows humor comes

from Freud's (1960 [1905]) description of condemned prisoners making lighthearted

jokes on their way to the gallows (e.g., the prisoner who, when offered a last cigarette


before his execution, says, "No thanks, I'm trying to quit"). It has come to be used to

refer to aggressive forms of humor with a grotesque or macabre character ("black

humor") used as a means of maintaining one's sanity in seemingly hopeless or

extremely harrowing situations. By poking fun at the ineptness and stupidity of

oppressors, gallows humor can be a subversive activity that allows one to gain a sense

of freedom from their power, a refusal to be completely subjugated by them, despite

their apparent domination. Such forms ofhumor were also very popular in the former

Soviet Union and Eastern European countries during the Communist era (Raskin,

1985).

Along with Freud's concept of humor (in the narrow sense) as a defense mecha-

nism, the superiority approach provides a basis for contemporary views of humor as

a way of coping with stress in daily life (which I will discuss in Chapter 9). As a defense

mechanism (a la Freud), humor enables us to protect ourselves from painful emotions

associated with adverse circumstances. As a way of asserting our superiority (a la

Gruner), humor is a way of refusing to be overcome by the people and situations,

large and small, which threaten our well-being. It must be recognized, though, that

while such aggressive uses of humor in coping may make us feel better, when directed

at spouses, close friends, and family members, they can have a negative effect on the

relationship.

Humor also enables us to avoid becoming too emotionally involved in the dis-

tress and problems of others. McDougall (1903, 1922) viewed humor as a sort of

"emotional anesthesia," that enables us to avoid feeling too much sympathy for others,

which might otherwise overwhelm us. He believed that humor and laughter evolved

in humans as an antidote to sympathy, a protective reaction that shields us from the

depressive influence of other people. Thus, when we make a joke about our own prob-lems or those of another person, we are separating ourselves, at least momentarily,from the emotional pain involved.


As we saw in the earlier section on psychoanalytic theory, a great deal of research

has been devoted to the study of aggression and hostility in humor. Although muchof this research was inspired by Freudian theory, it can also be viewed as relevant to

superiority/disparagement theories, since both approaches share the idea of aggres-

sion as a motive in humor. The theory that all humor is based on aggression leads to

the prediction that there will be a positive correlation between the amount of hostil-

ity present in a joke and its perceived funniness. Gruner (1997) stated that "usually,

everything else being equal, the more hostile the humor, the funnier" (p. 110). Someresearch has provided support for this hypothesis. McCauley and associates (1983)

conducted a series of six studies in which they had separate groups of participants rate

the aggressiveness and the funniness of different sets of cartoons taken from maga-zines. In each of these studies, significant positive correlations were found between

the median humor and aggressiveness ratings across the sets of cartoons (r= .49 to

.90), indicating that the more aggressive a cartoon, the funnier it was perceived to be.


These results were found with children and adults, individuals of high and low socioe-

conomic status, and native- and foreign-born participants. Singer, Gollob, and Levine

(1967) and Epstein and Smith (1956) also found evidence that hostile cartoons are

enjoyed more than nonhostile cartoons.

However, some other research suggests that a moderate amount of hostility or

aggression in humor is funnier than either too little or too much. Zillmann and Bryant

(1974) found that humorous "squelches" given in response to an aggressor were per-

ceived as most funny when they involved a moderate and equitable amount of retal-

iation rather than an over- or under-retaliation. Similarly, Zillmann, Bryant, and

Cantor (1974) found that, when research participants were shown political cartoons

in which mild, moderate, or extreme levels of disparagement were depicted against

presidential candidates, the cartoons showing mild attacks on a rejected candidate

were rated as most funny. Bryant (1977) also found that a moderate amount of hos-

tility expressed in put-down humor was rated funnier than either mild or intense hos-

tility,even when the equitableness of the "squelch" was controlled. Although they

suggest a curvilinear (inverted- U) rather than a linear relationship between hostility

and funniness, these findings could perhaps still be taken as supportive of Gruner's

theory of humor as "playful aggression," since more extreme forms of aggression

might no longer be perceived as playful and would therefore no longer be expectedto be funny.

There is also some evidence that the funniness of disparagement humor arises

more from the perceived pain experienced by the victim than from the hostility dis-

played by the protagonist. In three separate studies, Deckers and Carr (1986) obtained

ratings of funniness, the amount of hostility/aggression displayed by the protagonist,

and the amount of pain experienced by the victim in a wide variety of cartoons.

Although the hostility and pain ratings were highly correlated, funniness ratings were

significantly correlated with pain ratings but not with hostility ratings. Funniness

ratings increased as pain ratings increased up to a point, and then leveled off as painincreased further. Thus, moderate pain experienced by the victim or target of a joke

is perceived as funnier than no pain, but extreme pain is no more (or less) funny than

moderate pain. Thus, consistent with superiority/disparagement theory, the enjoy-ment of humor seems to arise from seeing someone suffer (in an unreal, playful

context). A similar correlation between funniness and pain ratings was found byWicker et al. (1981).

Although this research seems to support the aggression view of humor, Willibald

Ruch has questioned this theory on the basis of his extensive investigations involvingfactor analyses of jokes and cartoons (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998). In a series of studies

(which will be described in more detail in Chapter 7), Ruch and his colleagues factor

analyzed subjects' positive and negative responses to a wide range of humor stimuli

with participants from different age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, and nation-

alities. These researchers consistently found three stable factors, two of which related

to structural aspects of the humor (labeled incongruity-resolution and nonsense) and

only one content factor (sexual themes). Although they included a number of jokes

and cartoons containing hostile and aggressive themes in their studies, these did not


form a separate factor, but instead loaded on one or the other of the two structural

factors, suggesting that hostility is not a very salient dimension in people's responsesto humor. In defense of his theory, Gruner might perhaps argue that, since all humoris by definition based on aggression, it is not surprising that there is not a separatefactor for aggression. However, these factor analytic findings do raise questions about

the importance of aggression and hostility in humor. Incidentally, these findings also

cast some doubt on the validity of the numerous past studies (discussed earlier) that

have investigated participants' responses to jokes and cartoons that were categorized

by the researchers themselves into hostile and nonhostile types.

Another prediction of superiority/disparagement theory would seem to be that

people with more hostile and aggressive personality traits will enjoy all kinds ofhumor

(not just hostile humor) more than do less aggressive people. However, several studies

have found no significant correlations between a variety of trait measures of aggres-siveness and appreciation for various types of humor (Ruch and Hehl, 1998). Other

studies, as we have already seen, have found that aggressive people are more likely to

enjoy more hostile forms of humor (Donn Byrne, 1956; Ullmann and Lim, 1962).

Thus, while aggressiveness as a personality trait may be related to enjoyment of

aggressive forms of humor, it does not appear to be related to enjoyment of humorin general, contrary to the predictions of superiority theory.

In addition to these studies that bear on the relationship between funniness and

aggressiveness in humor, a considerable amount of social psychological research has

been conducted on disparagement or "put-down" humor, as a particular category of

humor. Indeed, superiority/disparagement theories enjoyed a period of considerable

popularity among social psychologists during the 1960s and 1970s. This was partic-

ularly evident in the research programs of DolfZillmann and his colleagues at Indiana

University (Zillmann and Cantor, 1976) and Lawrence La Fave and his colleagues at

the University of Windsor, Canada (La Fave, 1972). Much of this research focused

on the way the funniness of disparagement humor is determined by the social rela-

tionships among the protagonists, the victims, and the audience. In general, these

researchers hypothesized that people will find humor in the misfortunes of those

toward whom they have some antipathy. In one of the earliest experiments on humor,Wolff et al. (1934) presented a series of anti-Jewish jokes to both Jewish and non-

Jewish participants. Not surprisingly, they found that the Jewish participants, as com-

pared to the non-Jews, displayed less appreciation for these jokes. In addition, menshowed more appreciation for jokes ridiculing women than women did, while womenexceeded men in their appreciation of jokes ridiculing men.

However, mere membership in a particular racial or religious group may not be

sufficient for predicting a person's response to jokes about that group. Middleton

(1959) found that, although Black participants exceeded Whites in their appreciationof jokes disparaging Whites, Blacks and Whites did not differ in their appreciation of

anti-Black jokes. He speculated that this was due to the fact that the Blacks in his

sample, who were predominantly middle-class, may not have identified themselves

with the stereotyped lower-class Blacks portrayed in the jokes. Similarly, Cantor

(1976) found that both female and male college students showed greater appreciation


for disparagement humor in which a male had the last laugh at a female's expense, as

compared to jokes in which a female disparaged a male. Furthermore, subjects of both

sexes preferred disparaging jokes in which women (rather than men) were the victims

of both men and women. These findings suggest a possible identification of womenwith male aggressors in this era before women's liberation had made an impact on the

culture.

In view of these sorts of findings, Zillmann and Cantor (1976) emphasized the

importance of assessing individuals' attitudes toward a target group, rather than

relying merely on their group membership. They proposed a "dispositional model of

humor," in which they posited that individuals' disposition toward other people or

objects varies along a continuum from extreme positive affect through indifference to

extreme negative affect. They hypothesized that "humor appreciation varies inversely

with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity being disparaged,

and varies directly with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity

disparaging it" (p. 100). According to these authors, an individual's disposition toward

the target of a joke is not necessarily a permanent trait, but may be a temporaryattitude evoked by the situation, including features of the joke itself. Importantly,

though, they emphasized that humor always involves disparagement in some form:

"something malicious and potentially harmful must happen, or at least, the inferior-

ity of someone or something must be implied, before a humor response can occur"

(p. 101).

Zillmann and Cantor (1972) found evidence in support of this theory in a studyin which a group of college students and a group of middle-aged business and pro-fessional people were presented jokes involving people in superior-subordinate rela-

tionships (father-son, employer-employee, etc.). As predicted, students gave higher

ratings of funniness to the jokes in which the subordinate disparaged the superior than

to those in which the superior disparaged the subordinate, whereas the ratings of pro-fessionals revealed the opposite pattern (see also Zillmann and Bryant, 1980).

Similar research by Lawrence La Fave and his colleagues (reviewed by La Fave,

Haddad, and Maesen, 1976) employed the concept of the "identification class," which

is either a positive or negative attitude-belief system regarding a given class or cate-

gory of persons. These authors also emphasized the importance of self-esteem in

humor appreciation. Jokes that enhance a positively valued identification class or dis-

parage a negatively valued identification class were assumed to increase the individ-

ual's self-esteem and lead to greater mirth and enjoyment. La Fave, Haddad, and

Maesen (1976) reviewed a series of five studies that provided general support for their

theory. Each of these studies examined humor appreciation responses of research par-

ticipants holding opposing views on different social issues, such as religious beliefs,

women's liberation, and Canadian-American relations. The subjects were asked to rate

the funniness of jokes in which individuals identified with one or the other of these

opposing views were either the protagonist or the target of disparagement. As pre-

dicted, participants rated the jokes as funnier when the protagonist was a member of

a positively valued identification class and the target was a member of a negativelyvalued identification class.


Although the dispositional theory of humor suggests that humor results from the

demeaning or humiliation of someone that we dislike, Zillmann and Bryant (1980)

pointed out that there are normally strong social proscriptions against displaying

amusement and pleasure at the misfortunes of others, even those we dislike. Drawingfrom Freud's idea that nontendentious elements of a joke (the jokework) serve as a

distraction from the tendentious (aggressive or sexual) elements, these authors sug-

gested a "misattribution theory" of disparagement humor. According to this theory,

we can permit ourselves to laugh and display amusement at the debasement or dis-

comfiture of someone for whom we feel antipathy if there are incongruous or pecu-liar aspects of the situation to which we can (mis)attribute our amusement. "If, for

example, we witness our neighbor backing his brand-new car into his mailbox, and a

negative disposition predisposes us to enjoy this and makes us burst out in laughter,

we can always tell ourselves that we laughed because of the peculiar way in which the

mailbox was deformed, the peculiar expression on the neighbor's face, the peculiar

squeaking noise of the impact, or a dozen other peculiar things" (Zillmann and Bryant,

1980, p. 150).

Zillmann and Bryant tested this theory in an experiment in which participants

were first either treated rudely or in a normal manner by a female experimenter to

establish either a negative or neutral affective disposition toward her. The subjects

then witnessed her in one of three conditions: (1) a mishap condition with humorous

cues, in which the experimenter accidentally spilled a hot cup of tea on herself

when a jack-in-the-box suddenly popped out of a box; (2) a mishap condition without

humorous cues, in which she spilled hot tea on herself but the jack-in-the-box

remained closed; or (3) a no-mishap condition with humorous cues, in which the

jack-in-the-box popped up but she did not spill her tea. The dependent variable was

the amount of mirth (smiling and laughter) displayed by the subjects following this

event.

The results were consistent with the predictions from misattribution theory. The

subjects who had a negative disposition toward the experimenter, and who witnessed

the mishap along with the humor cues, smiled and laughed much more than did the

subjects in all the other conditions. Thus, the presence of innocuous humor cues

seems to have a disinhibiting effect that intensifies mirth in response to seeing

resented others suffer misfortunes. A similar process presumably occurs in aggressive

jokes in which one can misattribute one's amusement to humorous elements such as

incongruity and clever wordplay while enjoying the disparagement of someone toward

whom one has a negative disposition. These findings are consistent with Freud's ideas

about the jokework fooling the superego and thereby allowing libidinal pleasure to

be enjoyed, but the misattribution account provides a more cognitive explanation in

place of Freud's generally outmoded psychoanalytic concepts.

Evaluation

There seems to be little doubt that aggressive elements play a role in manyjokes and other forms of humor. There is considerable evidence that the playfully


aggressive elements in jokes and the perception of pain in others (within a nonseri-

ous, playful context) contribute to the funniness of the humor. There is also evidence

that humorous cues in the situation have a disinhibiting effect, enabling one to mis-

attribute one's mirth in response to the misfortunes experienced by disliked others.

The research on disparagement humor by Zillmann and La Fave and their colleagues

explored in some detail the parameters influencing the degree to which people are

amused by humorous put-downs. However, there is little evidence supporting the view

held by superiority/disparagement theorists that all humor involves some form of

aggression and that hostile people enjoy all types of humor more than do nonhostile

people.

There are also several problems with Gruner's (1978, 1997) version of

superiority/disparagement theory. First, the evolutionary theory that he presents is

essentially an outmoded Lamarkian view. The idea that laughter and humor have sur-

vived in humans because they were frequently used by our ancestors does not explaintheir adaptive value, that is, the ways in which humor and laughter provide an advan-

tage to individuals in the struggle to survive and produce offspring. This is not

an insurmountable problem, however, as compatible theories could be devised that

would be more consistent with contemporary evolutionary thinking. For example,Alexander (1986) proposed an evolutionary theory of humor that is essentially a

superiority/disparagement view, making use of concepts such as ostracism and indi-

rect reciprocity to account for the survival value of humor and laughter (evolutionarytheories of humor will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). Another problemwith Gruner's theory is that, like Freud, he proposes an outdated tension-release

model of laughter. However, this is not essential to his theory.

Apart from these theoretical problems, comparative animal research does not

support Gruner's view that laughter evolved in the context of aggression. Ethologicalstudies of the silent bared-teeth display and the relaxed open-mouth (play face) display

in apes, which are viewed as primate homologues of human smiling and laughter,

respectively, reveal that these facial displays occur exclusively in the context of friendly

social and play activities, and not in the context of aggression (van Hooff, 1972). I will

discuss this research in more detail in Chapter 6.

A major problem with Gruner's theory is that it is essentially unfalsifiable and

therefore cannot be tested empirically. Gruner claims that his theory could be falsi-

fied by finding just one example ofhumor that cannot be shown to be based on aggres-sion. However, since Gruner sets himself up as the judge of whether or not a given

example of humor fits his theory, it seems highly unlikely that a joke will be found

that does not pass the test. No matter how dubious the evidence may appear to every-one else, Gruner always seems to be able to satisfy himself that he can identify the

aggression in even the most seemingly innocuous examples of humor. Even if a jokeinvolves nothing more than a clever play on words, Gruner can argue that this conveysthe feelings of superiority of the person who came up with the cleverness.

Indeed, one suspects that Gruner could find aggression not just in all humor, but

in all human activity. It appears that, to Gruner, humans are fundamentally aggres-

CONCLUSION

sive, in his broad sense of the word. Thus, he has defined aggression so broadly that

his theory seems to account for all human activity and therefore fails to explain the

uniqueness of humor. Furthermore, by lumping all humor into the single category of

aggression, Gruner ignores the many other ways in which different types of humor

might be distinguished from one another, which might be of theoretical and practi-

cal importance.Consistent with favorable views of humor in contemporary culture as a whole,

the extreme view that all humor involves aggression has generally fallen into disfavor

among humor researchers. Superiority theories have largely been replaced by cogni-tive incongruity theories, which will be discussed in the next chapter. In addition,

recent decades have seen a resurgence of views of humor and laughter as a source of

psychological and physical health, and a growing interest in applications of humor in

psychotherapy, health care, education, and the workplace. The view of humor as a

form of aggression (albeit playful aggression), having its roots in derision and dispar-

agement, seems to many to be incompatible with benign views of humor as a pathwayto health. However, as I have pointed out, the superiority view can actually provide a

theoretical basis for conceptualizing humor as a way of coping with stress and adver-

sity. If humor is a way of playfully asserting a sense of victory over the people and sit-

uations that threaten us, mastery over our oppressors, and liberation from life's

constraints, then it is not difficult to see how it can be an important way of main-

taining our self-esteem and mental sanity in the face of adversity. Thus, the superi-

ority theory may actually be more compatible with views of humor as coping than is

often recognized.In summary, although an extreme view of humor as aggression is generally

rejected today, most researchers agree that humor can often be used to express aggres-sion. Recent research on teasing (discussed in Chapters 5 and 8) exemplifies the con-

tinuing interest in aggressive aspects of humor (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, and

Monarch, 1998; Kowalski, Howerton, and McKenzie, 2001). This research also high-

lights the paradox that humor can be both aggressive and prosocial at the same time,

a theme that is central to the superiority theory.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I have begun my discussion of the major humor theories and

my review of the early empirical research by focusing on psychoanalytic and

superiority/disparagement theories, two broad theoretical approaches that were veryinfluential in previous decades. Both of these approaches generated a good deal of

interesting research, contributing substantially to our knowledge of the psychologyof humor. Although they are not as prominent today, these two approaches call atten-

tion to a number of questions about humor that continue to be the focus of muchresearch and theoretical work: why so much humor seems to be based on sexuality

and/or aggression; why humor gives us so much pleasure and why we are so


motivated to engage in it; the role of humor in coping with stress; and the functions

of humor in interpersonal interactions. We will return to these themes repeatedly

throughout this book. In the next chapter, I will explore conceptual and early empir-ical contributions from three other broad theoretical approaches that have strongly

influenced humor research, namely arousal, incongruity, and reversal theories.

CHAPTER

Theories and Early Research II:

Arousal, Incongruity, andReversal Theories

In the previous chapter we examined psy-

choanalytic and superiority theories of humor. Both emphasize emotional aspects of

humor, seeking to account for its pleasurable nature by focusing on ways it allows us

to express strong emotions (i.e., sexuality and aggression) in a playful way. Althoughthese theories are not very popular today, they introduced themes that continue to be

of theoretical and empirical importance.In this chapter, I will discuss three additional theoretical approaches: (1) arousal

theories, which focus on the role of psychological and physiological arousal in humor;

(2) incongruity theories, which emphasize the cognitive aspects; and (3) reversal

theory, which views humor as a form of mental play. Although there are many over-

lapping ideas in these different approaches, each emphasizes particular aspects that

are seen as central to humor. By combining insights and findings from all of these

approaches, along with those we discussed in the last chapter, we gain a more com-

prehensive understanding of the multifaceted phenomenon of humor.

AROUSAL THEORIES


As we saw in the previous chapter, both Freudian and superiority theories (at least

the version advanced by Gruner, 1997) hypothesized that the function of laughter

57

THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II

is to dissipate excess physiological energy. This energy-release theory of laughtercan be traced to the ideas of nineteenth-century writer Herbert Spencer (1860).

Spencer was strongly influenced by the then-popular "hydraulic" theory of nervous

energy (modeled after the steam engine) in which energy is thought to build up in

our bodies and must be released through muscular movement. According to Spencer,

the respiratory and muscular action of laughter is a specialized way for the body to

release excess nervous energy, much like a safety valve on a steam engine. Needless

to say, this view is inconsistent with our current understanding of the nervous

system.Other theorists, both before and after Spencer, have conceptualized humor more

generally as a way of relieving built-up psychological tension or strain. For example,Immanuel Kant (17241804) stated that "laughter is an affection arising from the

sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing" (in Critique ofJudg-

ment, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 47). Writing early in the twentieth century,

Gregory (1924) viewed relief as the common factor in all forms of humor. Accordingto Gregory, the relief that leads to laughter can arise from many sources, includingthe successful outcome of a struggle or the sudden perception of the weakness of an

opponent (as in Gruner's theory), or when one builds up tension in anticipation of a

difficult task and it turns out to be much less demanding than expected. It can also

be relief from pain or fear, or from socially imposed constraints on behavior or

language.Tension-relief theories focus on the role of psychological and physiological

arousal in the humor process. A more modern arousal-related theory of humor was

that of Daniel Berlyne at the University of Toronto (Berlyne, 1960, 1969, 1972).

Berlyne was interested in psychological aspects of aesthetic experiences in general,

including the appreciation of art and the enjoyment of play, as well as humor. Hefocused particularly on various stimulus properties, which he referred to as collative

variables, that make a stimulus such as a work of art, music, or literature aesthetically

pleasing. These included such properties as novelty, level of surprise, complexity,

change, ambiguity, incongruity, and redundancy. They were called collative variables

because they require the individual to perceive various elements of a stimulus togetherin order to compare and contrast them. According to Berlyne, jokes and humorous

events also contain collative variables, such as surprise, incongruity, ambiguity, and so

on. Berlyne (1960) reviewed psychophysiological research showing that collative vari-

ables strongly attract our attention, because we find them interesting and unusual, and

they are associated with increases in arousal in the brain and autonomic nervous

system.In his theory of humor, Berlyne (1972) rejected Spencer's outdated notion that

laughter derives from a release of pent-up energy. Instead, he based his theory on the

well-known concept of an inverted-U relationship between physiological arousal and

subjective pleasure (Hebb, 1955). According to this view, the greatest pleasure is asso-

ciated with a moderate amount of arousal, whereas too little or too much arousal is

unpleasant. Berlyne postulated two arousal-related mechanisms in humor, which he

called the arousal boost and arousal jag mechanisms. The arousal boost mechanism oper-

AROUSAL THEORIES

ates during the telling of a joke or perception of a humorous situation, when arousal

is elevated by means of the collative variables in the stimulus. This increase in arousal

up to an optimal level is experienced as pleasurable.

The arousaljag mechanism takes over when arousal has been elevated beyond the

optimal level and has therefore begun to be aversive. The joke punch line is a sudden

resolution of the arousing properties of the joke, causing the arousal level to be

reduced very quickly to a pleasurable level once again. This sudden reduction of

arousal from an aversive to a pleasurable level adds to the enjoyment of the joke. The

subjective pleasure associated with both the arousal boost and the arousal jag is

expressed by laughter. Thus, rather than viewing laughter as a method of releasingexcess arousal, Berlyne saw it as an expression of the pleasure resulting from changesin arousal to an optimal level (not too high and not too low). Although similar

processes occur in the appreciation of art and in play, Berlyne suggested that humoris distinguished from these other types of aesthetic experience by the brief time scale

on which the arousal changes occur, the cues precluding seriousness that accompanyit, and the extreme bizarreness of the collative variables involved.


Arousal theories of humor received a considerable amount of research attention

during the 1960s and 1970s, a period when there was great interest in the role of

arousal in emotions generally. The focus of much of this research was therefore on

the emotional component of humor, which I refer to as mirth. In a well-known exper-

iment, Schachter and Wheeler (1962) manipulated the degree of sympathetic nervous

system activation in research participants by injecting them with either epinephrine

(which increases arousal of the sympathetic nervous system), chlorpromazine (whichdecreases sympathetic arousal), or a placebo saline solution. The participants were

then exposed to a slapstick comedy film. Those who had been injected with epi-

nephrine showed greater amusement (smiling and laughter) in response to the film

and rated it as funnier, as compared to those in the placebo group, who in turn showed

greater amusement and higher funniness ratings than did those in the chlorpromazine

group. Thus, higher levels of autonomic arousal, even when produced by a drug,resulted in greater expressions of mirth and perceptions of amusement in response to

a humorous stimulus.

These results were interpreted as providing support for the view that emotions

involve a combination of autonomic arousal (which determines the intensity of the

emotion) and cognitive appraisal (which determines its quality or valence). Thus, the

amount of mirth elicited by a joke or humorous experience seems to be a function of

both the cognitive appraisal or evaluation of the amusing qualities of the humorstimulus and the physiological arousal present at the time. Interestingly, although this

physiological arousal may be activated by elements of the joke itself, it may also arise

from factors separate from the joke, such as the ingestion of an arousing drug. Sub-

sequent research (Gavanski, 1986) has shown that smiling and laughter (the facial and

vocal expressions of the emotion of mirth) are more strongly associated with the


emotional enjoyment of humor (humor appreciation), whereas funniness ratings are

related more to the cognitive evaluation component (humor comprehension).In addition to research on the effects of arousal on the positive emotional response

to humor, a number of studies were conducted to investigate Berlyne's hypothesesthat humorous stimuli themselves produce changes in autonomic arousal and that the

perceived funniness of the stimuli is related to this arousal level in a curvilinear manner

(i.e., inverted-U relationship). Levi (1965) showed female office clerks a series of four

different films (emotionally neutral, fear-arousing, anger-arousing, and comedy) on

different days. After each film, he collected urine samples from the participants and

analyzed them for levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine, hormones that are asso-

ciated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system. The results showed that,

whereas the emotionally neutral film resulted in decreases in these hormones, the

other three films all produced significant increases. Thus, the amusement associated

with comedy produces similar arousal of the sympathetic-adrenomedullary system

(the well-known fight or flight response) as do feelings of fear and anger. More recent

research has also shown comedy-related increases in levels of cortisol, a hormone that

is normally associated with the stress response (Hubert, Moeller, and de Jong-Meyer,

1993).

Other researchers monitored various psychophysiological variables associated

with arousal of the sympathetic nervous system while participants were exposed to

comedy. Averill (1969) found increased skin conductance (a measure of emotion-

related sweating) and heart rate in participants watching a comedy film, indicating

sympathetic arousal. Langevin and Day (1972) examined the relationship between

psychophysiological changes in participants and the rated funniness of humor across

a series of cartoons. The results showed that cartoons that were rated as funnier were

associated with greater increases in heart rate and skin conductance. Contrary to

Berlyne's theory, there was no evidence of an inverted-U relationship between arousal

and funniness; instead, the relationship was found to be linear.

Godkewitsch (1976) further evaluated Berlyne's theory of arousal boost and

arousal jag mechanisms by assessing physiological responses in research participants

during the presentation of both the joke body and the punch line of a series of jokes,

as well as having the participants afterwards rate their subjective arousal level and the

funniness of the jokes. The results revealed that jokes that were rated as funnier were

associated with greater increases in skin conductance during both the joke body and

the punch line, greater increases in heart rate during the punch line, and greater sub-

jective arousal ratings subsequently. These results supported Berlyne's notion of an

"arousal boost" mechanism in humor, but did not support the "arousal jag" concept.Instead of lowering arousal to a supposedly optimal level, the punch lines were found

to increase arousal even further than that found with the joke bodies.

The results of Godkewitsch's study, combined with the findings of several other

investigations examining heart rate, skin conductance, blood pressure, muscle tension,

and other psychophysiological variables (e.g., Chapman, 1973a, 1976; Goldstein,

Harman, McGhee, and Karasik, 1975; J. M.Jones and Harris, 1971), provide consis-

tent evidence that exposure to humor produces increased sympathetic nervous system

AROUSAL THEORIES 61

activation, with almost no evidence for the inverted-U relationship predicted by

optimal arousal theories like Berlyne's. The relationship between humor enjoymentand autonomic arousal appears to be linear; the more arousal, the more enjoymentand the funnier the humor is perceived to be (McGhee, 1983b). These findings are

consistent with the view of humor as essentially an emotional response (i.e., mirth)

which, like other emotions, is associated with increased physiological arousal.

Based on evidence that the degree of humor appreciation is largely determined

by the level of emotional arousal, Cantor, Bryant, and Zillmann (1974) conducted a

"transfer of excitation" experiment to test the hypothesis that residual arousal associ-

ated with either strong positive or strong negative emotions could increase the enjoy-ment of subsequent humor. In a 2 x 2 design, participants were randomly assigned to

either a positive or negative hedonic tone condition and to either a high or low arousal

condition. In the low arousal positive condition, they read mildly interesting articles

from a newspaper; in the high arousal positive condition, they read a graphically

descriptive erotic passage from a novel. In the low arousal negative condition, theyread a mildly disturbing newspaper article; in the high arousal negative condition,

they read a graphic description of a lynch mob's brutal torture and mutilation of a

young boy. In a supposedly different experiment, the participants were subsequentlyasked to rate the funniness of a series of jokes and cartoons that did not contain

obvious sexual or hostile themes.

As predicted, participants who had been exposed to either of the high arousal

emotion conditions (positive or negative) rated the humor stimuli as much funnier

than did those in the two low arousal conditions. These results indicate that increased

emotional arousal, regardless of whether it is produced by a positive or a negative

emotion, can contribute to greater enjoyment of humor. These findings also providea more plausible explanation of the tension-relief function of humor than the old

"steam-engine" model. The arousal associated with negative emotions like fear,

anxiety, or anger that are evoked by an unpleasant or stressful event can later be trans-

ferred to the positive feelings of mirth accompanying any humor that may occur,

intensifying the pleasurable feelings to a degree that is proportional to the amount of

negative emotion, and this heightened feeling of pleasure is then expressed throughintense laughter.

Shurcliff (1968) conducted an interesting experiment to test the hypothesis that

humor represents a sudden relief from strong emotion, using anxiety as the emotion.

To manipulate their levels of anxiety, participants were informed that they would be

required to perform various tasks with a white rat that they were to remove from a

cage. They were randomly assigned to different conditions involving tasks evoking

varying degrees of anxiety, ranging from merely holding the rat to giving it an injec-

tion with a large syringe. When the subjects reached into the cage and removed the

rat, they discovered that it was just a rubber toy. They were then asked to rate their

anxiety and the funniness of the experience.

As predicted by relief theory, the reported level of anxiety of the participants prior

to the discovery of the toy rat was found to be positively correlated with the funni-

ness ratings: those who thought they would need to give the rat an injection with an


imposing-looking needle found the surprising outcome runnier than did those who

merely thought they would need to hold it. However, the idea of relief from anxiety

(i.e., anxiety-reduction) was not directly tested in the study. These findings seem to

be better explained in terms of the "transfer of excitation" concept, whereby the

mirthful emotion associated with the perception of funniness was enhanced by the

residual arousal resulting from the anticipatory anxiety, rather than by a sudden reduc-

tion in that arousal.

Evaluation

Research based on arousal theories of humor has contributed important infor-

mation to our understanding of the humor process. Berlyne's theory, and the research

it inspired, supports the view that humor represents a complex, physiologically-basedinteraction between cognition and emotion. Humor is clearly an emotional phenom-enon as well as a cognitive one. With regard to the cognitive aspects, Berlyne's ideas

about collative properties in humor have not received much further research atten-

tion. With regard to his ideas about the emotional aspects, though, there is consis-

tent support for the idea that humor is associated with increased autonomic arousal

and that increases in arousal, regardless of their source, can increase the subsequentemotional enjoyment of humor. However, there is little evidence for an inverted-Urelationship between arousal level and enjoyment; instead, the relationship appears to

be linear. Rather than reducing emotional arousal levels, humor itself is an emotional

response that is accompanied by increases in arousal, and is expressed by the vocal

and facial behavior of laughter.

The emotional component of humor has gained increasing attention amongresearchers in recent years. As one example, Willibald Ruch (1997) has investigated

the positive emotion associated with humor, using Ekman and Friesen's (1978) Facial

Action Coding system. Research on biological aspects of humor, mirth, and laughterhas also continued to the present time. The early psychophysiological investigations

of arousal led to further studies of physiological processes associated with humor and

mirth in the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine and immune systems, and the

brain. Today, this line of research continues in studies of brain processes in humor

using sophisticated methodologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging

(fMRI). This research will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

INCONGRUITY THEORIES


We have seen that most of the different theories have something to say about the

cognitive-perceptual aspects of humor. For example, Freud's ideas aboutjokework and

Berlyne's collative variables both referred to cognitive components. Incongruity theo-

ries of humor focus even more specifically on cognition and give less attention to the


social and emotional aspects of humor. These theories suggest that the perception of

incongruity is the crucial determinant of whether or not something is humorous:

things that are funny are incongruous, surprising, peculiar, unusual, or different from

what we normally expect. As we saw in Chapter 1, the idea that incongruity is the

basis of humor has been proposed by many philosophers and theorists over the past

250 years.

The eighteenth-century writer Beattie stated that "laughter arises from the view

of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, con-

sidered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or as acquiring a sort of mutual

relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them" (quotedin Ritchie, 2004, p. 48). Similarly, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer

(1788-1860) stated that "the cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden

perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have

been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of

this incongruity" (in The World as Will and Idea, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 52).

Thus, humor occurs when there is a mismatch or clash between our sensory percep-tions of something and our abstract knowledge or concepts about that thing.

Summarizing the cognitive elements involved in humor, psychologist Hans Eysenck

(1942, p. 307) stated that "laughter results from the sudden, insightful integration of

contradictory or incongruous ideas, attitudes, or sentiments which are experienced

objectively."

The incongruity approach to humor was further elaborated by Arthur Koestler

(1964), who developed the concept of bisociation to explain the mental processes

involved in humor, as well as in artistic creativity and scientific discovery. Accordingto Koestler, bisociation occurs when a situation, event, or idea is simultaneously per-

ceived from the perspective of two self-consistent but normally incompatible or dis-

parate frames of reference. Thus, a single event "is made to vibrate simultaneously on

two different wavelengths, as it were" (p. 35). A simple example is a pun, in which

two different meanings of a word or phrase are brought together simultaneously (e.g.,

"Why do people become bakers? Because they knead the dough").The following joke (from Suls, 1972, p. 90) may be used to illustrate these ideas:

O'Riley was on trial for armed robbery. The jury came out and announced, "Not guilty."

"Wonderful," said O'Riley, "does that mean I can keep the money?"

The punch line of this joke is incongruous, or inconsistent with the setup, since the

man is implicitly admitting his guilt after just having been found not guilty. This sur-

prising ending triggers two incompatible thoughts: he is guilty and not guilty at the

same time. Thus, in the humorous mode of thinking, contrary to the rational logic

of normal, serious thought, a thing can be both X and not-X at the same time (Mulkay,

1988). Indeed, it is this simultaneous activation of two contradictory perceptions that

is the essence of humor. It is worth noting incidentally that a proponent of superior-

ity theory, such as Gruner (1997), would say that we are laughing at the stupidity of

the crook who inadvertently admits his guilt after just being found innocent (the name

O'Riley indicates that it is also an ethnic joke playing on the stereotype of the Irish


as slow-witted). Although Koestler (1964) agreed that bisociation must be accompa-nied by some aggression in order for it to be funny, later incongruity theorists have

generally focused only on the cognitive aspects of humor and have downplayed or

even denied the importance of aggressive elements.

Although some form of incongruity is generally viewed as a necessary condition

for humor, most theorists would acknowledge that incongruity by itself is not suffi-

cient, since not all incongruity is funny (being hit by a car while walking on the

sidewalk is incongruous but not funny). Different theories have different ways of

explaining this "something extra." For example, some theories have suggested that the

incongruity must occur suddenly (Suls, 1983), or must take place in a playful and non-

threatening context (Rothbart, 1976). One idea that was popularized by several cog-nitive theorists in the 1970s was that, for incongruity to be funny, it must also be

resolved or "make sense" in some way. According to these "incongruity-resolution"

theories, resolution of incongruity in a joke is what makes it possible for us to "get

the joke." Thomas Shultz (1972), at McGill University, developed an incongruity-

resolution theory in which he suggested that the punch line of a joke creates an

incongruity by introducing information that is not compatible with our initial under-

standing of the joke setup. This then prompts the listener to go back and search for

an ambiguity in the setup that can be interpreted in a different way and that allows

for the punch line to make sense. The ambiguity that provides this resolution of the

incongruity can take a number of different forms, including phonological, lexical,

surface structure, deep structure, and nonlinguistic forms of ambiguity.

These ideas may be illustrated by the following joke (from Ritchie, 2004, p. 62):

A lady went into a clothing store and asked "May I try on that dress in the window?" "Well," replied

the sales clerk doubtfully, "don't you think it would be better to use the dressing room?"

Here the punch line is initially incongruous because it seems incompatible with the

first part of the joke. To understand the joke, we search through the setup for an ambi-

guity and discover that "in the window" is ambiguous. On first hearing the setup, we

interpret this phrase as referring to the current location of the dress, but after the

punch line we realize that there is also an alternate meaning, i.e., the place where the

shopper wishes to try on the dress. When we recognize that the clerk understood it

in this second meaning, we are able to resolve the incongruity and thereby "get" the

joke.

Similar to Shultz, Jerry Suls (1972, 1983), then at the State University of NewYork at Albany, proposed a two-stage model of humor comprehension that is fre-

quently cited by humor researchers. This theory also views humor comprehension as

a sort of problem-solving task (see Figure 2). According to the model, a joke setup

causes the listener to make a prediction about the likely outcome. When the punchline does not conform to the prediction, the listener is surprised and looks for a cog-nitive rule that will make the punch line follow from the material in the joke setup.

When this cognitive rule is found, the incongruity is removed, the joke is perceivedas funny, and laughter ensues. If a cognitive rule is not found, however, the incon-

gruity remains, and the joke leads only to puzzlement instead of humor. Thus, in this


Story or

Cartoon

Set-up


"tendentious" (sexual and aggressive) elements of humor that are emphasized in psy-

choanalytic and superiority/disparagement theories. Indeed, several cognitively

oriented theorists have sought to subsume these latter theories within incongruity

theory. For example, Suls (1977) argued that the aspects of jokes that are usually

thought to be aggressive and disparaging are not really aggressive, but instead are

a way of providing the information needed for the incongruity to be resolved. To

illustrate, he used the following joke (p. 42):

Question: If your son flunks out of school and is illiterate and anti-social, what can he grow upto be?

Answer: An Italian policeman.

From the perspective of disparagement and superiority theories, this joke is amusingto people who dislike Italians because it disparages people of that nationality, and more

specifically Italian policemen. Analyzing the joke from the perspective of incongruity-resolution theory, however, Suls argued that the aggressive element merely providesa way of resolving the incongruity. There is an incongruity between the joke setup

and the punch line, since being uneducated, illiterate, and antisocial does not seem to

be consistent with being a policeman. This incongruity is resolved, however, when we

recognize the existence of a stereotype that Italians are stupid.

Although Suls suggested that we may actually need to believe this stereotype in

order to "get" the joke, other authors have argued that simply recognizing that such

a stereotype exists, without actually agreeing with it, is all that is needed to enjoy a

joke (e.g., Attardo and Raskin, 1991). According to these authors, seemingly aggres-

sive (e.g., ethnic, sexist) forms of humor are not really aggressive at all: they simplymake use of common stereotypes to play with ideas in an amusing way. Goldstein,

Suls, and Anthony (1972) referred to this view as the salience hypothesis, since the

purpose of aggressive and sexual elements in jokes is to make salient the information

needed to resolve the incongruity. In this way, cognitive theorists were able to com-

pletely sanitize humor, removing any residue of the aggression and other tendentious

elements that were once seen as being essential to it.

Although incongruity-resolution theorists saw resolution as essential for humorto occur in response to a joke, they recognized that the incongruity is never com-

pletely resolved. As Forabosco (1992) pointed out, the resolution is really just a

"pseudo-resolution," which makes sense only within the fantasy world of the joke. If

a joke truly made sense, and the incongruity was completely resolved, it would simplybe a nonhumorous puzzle instead of a joke. Similarly, McGhee (1972) wrote about

the "fantasy assimilation" that occurs in jokes as being quite different from the "reality

assimilation" of more serious cognitive processing. Pien and Rothbart (1977) also

noted that the resolution of a joke often introduces new incongruities that can add to

its enjoyment.


The incongruity-resolution theory ofhumor was investigated in a series of studies

by Thomas Shultz and his colleagues at McGill University. Shultz (1974b) presented


undergraduate students a series of jokes and asked them to identify the order in which

they noticed various elements within each. The results supported the predictions of

Shultz's incongruity-resolution theory: subjects reported that they did not notice the

hidden meaning of an ambiguous element in the joke setup until the incongruity of

the punch line caused them to search for a resolution. A second study using visual

cartoons instead of verbal jokes also showed that participants tended to notice incon-

gruous elements before noticing details that resolved the incongruity.

Shultz and his colleagues also examined the role of incongruity and resolution by

creating incongruity-removed and resolution-removed versions of jokes and cartoons.

If incongruity and resolution are essential to humor, then removal of either of themshould decrease humor appreciation. For example, one of the original jokes was the

following:

Mother: "Doctor, come at once! Our baby swallowed a fountain pen!"Doctor: "I'll be right over. What are you doing in the meantime?"

Mother: "Using a pencil."

In this joke, the incongruous reply of the mother in the punch line is resolved by rec-

ognizing the ambiguity in the doctor's question, which could mean either "What are

you doing in the meantime to treat the baby?" or "What are you using as a substi-

tute for a fountain pen?" In the incongruity-removed version of the joke, Shultz

changed the punch line to: "We don't know what to do." In this version, there is no

incongruity between the joke setup and the punch line and therefore no puzzle to

solve. In the resolution-removed version, Shultz had the parents saying that the babyhad swallowed a rubber band instead of a fountain pen. Now the punch line ("Usinga pencil") is still incongruous and puzzling, but there is no resolution, since there is

no logical connection between the baby swallowing a rubber band and the parents

using a pencil.

Shultz and Horibe (1974) presented these different versions of a number of jokes

to children in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. The children were asked to rate the funniness of

the jokes, and the experimenters also observed the degree to which they smiled and

laughed. As predicted, the results showed that, by grade 3, the children found the

original versions of the jokes funnier than the resolution-removed versions, which in

turn were found to be funnier than the incongruity-removed versions. Thus, incon-

gruity without resolution is funnier than no incongruity, but resolution of the incon-

gruity is even funnier. Similar results were found using original, incongruity-removed,and resolution-removed versions of cartoons (Shultz, 1972) and riddles (Shultz,

1974a).

Interestingly, in the study by Shultz and Horibe (1974), children in grade 1

showed no difference between the original and resolution-removed jokes, but both

were funnier than the versions without incongruity. The authors suggested that, at an

early stage ofdevelopment (prior to the development of concrete operational thought)

incongruity alone is sufficient to elicit a humor response, whereas both incongruityand resolution are required at a later stage. However, Pien and Rothbart (1976)

found that younger children also appreciate joke resolutions if the humor is easy to

understand.


Problems with this methodology were noted, however, by some researchers, who

pointed out that it is difficult to hold some of the elements of a joke constant while

varying others (Nerhardt, 1977; Pien and Rothbart, 1977). For example, removingthe resolution from jokes and cartoons may also eliminate some of the incongruity. If

participants then prefer the original jokes over those with resolution removed, it is

difficult to know whether this is due to the differences in resolution or incongruity.

Frank Wicker and colleagues (1981) at the University of Texas at Austin attemptedto get around these problems by taking a different approach. They had research

participants rate a number of jokes on a funniness scale and also on 1 3 other scales

assessing dimensions suggested by various theories of humor, including incongruity-

resolution, superiority, psychoanalytic, and arousal theories. These ratings included:

surprise, nonsense, resolution, difficulty, emotional involvement, superiority, sym-

pathy, pain, freedom, and anxiety. Participants' ratings on each of the scales were

averaged for each joke, and a factor analysis was conducted on these averaged

ratings.

This analysis revealed three factors relating to: (1) cognitive incongruity-resolution elements (surprise, resolution, originality), (2) superiority, and (3) emo-

tional elements (anxiety, pain, importance, emotional involvement). The funniness

ratings loaded primarily on the cognitive factor, a finding that was interpreted as indi-

cating that funniness is primarily determined by information-processing mechanisms

relating to incongruity and resolution. The emotionality factor also correlated with

funniness, but this association was mediated by incongruity and resolution ratings,

suggesting that the effects of emotional elements on humor appreciation (such as

those described by superiority and psychoanalytic theories) may depend in part on the

cleverness of the cognitive elements described by incongruity-resolution theories.

This finding was taken as support for the salience hypothesis advocated by propo-nents of incongruity-resolution theories.

However, not all cognitive theorists were convinced by the evidence for

incongruity-resolution theories. For example, Swedish psychologist Goran Nerhardt,at the University of Stockholm, argued that incongruity alone is sufficient for humor,and that resolution of the incongruity is not necessary. Nerhardt (1970) was dissatis-

fied with the use of jokes and cartoons as stimuli in experiments on cognitive processesin humor. Since jokes incorporate many unmeasured and uncontrolled linguistic

elements and emotional themes, he argued, it is difficult to know which dimensions

are responsible for research participants' funniness ratings. Also, when subjects are

asked to rate the funniness of jokes, their own assumptions and implicit theories

of humor may influence their responses. To avoid these problems, Nerhardt devel-

oped a rather clever methodology, called the weightjudgment paradigm, as a way of

experimentally manipulating incongruity, which he defined as divergence from

expectation.

In this paradigm, participants, who were led to believe that they were involved in

a psychophysical study, were asked to compare a series of identical-looking weightswith a standard reference weight. A number of very similar weights (averaging500 +/- 50 g) were evaluated first, and then one that was much lighter or heavier than


the standard (50 g or 3000 g) was presented (see Deckers, 1993, for a detailed descrip-

tion of the methodology). Interestingly, when participants lifted this greatly discrepant

weight, they frequently smiled, chuckled, or even laughed aloud, and Nerhardt (1970,

1976) found that the more discrepant this weight was from the mean of the other

comparisons, the more the subjects displayed such expressions of mirth. Thus, the

size of the incongruity (the discrepancy in weight) was directly related to the amount

of smiling and laughter evoked. Furthermore, several studies using this paradigmshowed sizable correlations between the intensity of these mirth responses and par-

ticipants' ratings of the funniness of the experience (Deckers, 1993; Deckers, Jenkins,

and Gladfelter, 1977; Deckers, Pell, and Lundahl, 1990), indicating that the smilingand laughter was a reflection of humorous amusement and not just embarrassment or

nervousness. The weight judgment paradigm, then, is a way of operationally defining

incongruity without using inherently humorous stimuli such as jokes and cartoons,

and it seems to reliably produce an emotional mirth response that is expressed by

smiling and laughter.

Lambert Deckers and his colleagues at Ball State University used this procedurein a number of experiments, in which they varied different parameters to examine

their effects on the mirth response. For example, Deckers and Kizer (1975) found that

a minimum number of initial comparisons was needed in order to build up an expec-tation about the weight before a discrepancy would evoke expressions of mirth. In

addition, studies that manipulated the degree of discrepancy between the final and

earlier weights showed a negatively accelerated relationship with the amount of

smiling and laughter evoked: greater discrepancies evoked a greater amount of these

responses up to a point, after which additional increases in the weight discrepancy did

not produce more mirth (Deckers and Edington, 1979; Deckers and Salais, 1983;

Gerber and Routh, 1975).

Studies comparing the effects of unexpectedly heavy versus light weights indi-

cated that weights that were heavier than expected evoked more humor than did those

that were lighter than expected (Deckers and Kizer, 1974; Gerber and Routh, 1975).

When subjects were asked to make judgments about either the height or the weightof a series of stimuli and then presented with stimuli that were incongruous in either

height or weight, mirth reactions were greater when the critical comparison was dis-

crepant in the particular dimension that the subject had been judging (Deckers,

Edington, and VanCleave, 1981).

Nerhardt (1976) and Deckers (1993) argued that the weight judgment findings

demonstrate that incongruity without resolution is capable of eliciting humor, con-

tradicting incongruity-resolution theories which suggest that incongruity must be

resolved for it to be funny. At the same time, they recognized that there are other

necessary conditions in addition to incongruity for a humor response to be evoked.

Interestingly, Nerhardt (1976) was initially unsuccessful in his early experiments with

the weight judgment paradigm, which he carried out in the guise of a consumer surveyin a railroad station. There he found that train passengers who were asked to judge

weights of a series of suitcases did not respond with expressions of mirth to unex-

pectedly heavy or light ones. This was apparently because they were inclined to take


the experiment too seriously, were perhaps in a hurry to get somewhere, and were not

easily put into the playful frame of mind that also seems to be necessary for a humor

response to occur (cf. Apter, 1982). When the experimental paradigm was moved into

a laboratory, using undergraduate participants who were more familiar with psycho-

logical research, and an effort was made to put the subjects at ease, smiling and laugh-ter began to be elicited by the discrepant weight. Thus, although resolution of

incongruity may not be necessary for humor, it does appear that there are other

requirements besides incongruity, having to do with the emotional climate or mental

set of the perceiver. In sum, incongruity seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient

condition for humor.

Several studies have also investigated the salience hypothesis proposed by

incongruity-resolution theorists. As we saw in the previous chapter in our discussion

of psychoanalytic theory, earlier research showed that participants are more likely to

enjoy aggressive humor after they have been made angry and to enjoy sexual humorafter they have been sexually aroused (e.g., Strickland, 1959). These findings were

interpreted by psychoanalytic theorists as demonstrating support for drive theory. In

contrast, incongruity-resolution theorists Goldstein, Suls, and Anthony (1972) sug-

gested that these experimental manipulations simply increased the salience of sexual

and aggressive themes, thereby creating a cognitive set that made the corresponding

jokes easier to understand.

To test this idea, Goldstein and colleagues (1972) conducted an experiment in

which they presented participants with photographs depicting either scenes of vio-

lence or automobiles. After rating the photographs for aesthetic value, the subjects

were asked to rate the funniness of a number of cartoons that were either aggressiveor contained automobiles as a major element. As predicted by the salience hypothe-

sis, those who had been exposed to aggressive photographs rated aggressive humor as

funnier, whereas those who had been exposed to photographs of automobiles pre-ferred the cartoons about automobiles.

In a second study, the researchers showed that exposure to music-related jokes

increases subsequent enjoyment of other jokes about music, whereas exposure to jokes

about medical topics increases subsequent enjoyment of medical jokes. Since pictures

of automobiles and jokes about music and medicine are not likely to arouse specific

drives, the results appear to support the hypothesis that it is the salience of the content,

rather than arousal of a drive, that accounts for the increased appreciation of the

humor. The authors concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation of the data

would rule out motivation as an explanatory concept, since the salience hypothesiscan account for the appreciation of nonsense as well as aggressive and sexual humor"

(p. 169).

A subsequent study by Kuhlman (1985), however, provided less support for the

salience hypothesis. Kuhlman manipulated salience in a less obvious way by having

participants rate the funniness of a series of jokes either in a normal college class-

room, or just before they were to take an examination, or in the middle of an exam.

One-third of the jokes contained social taboo themes (sex, profanity, violence), one

third contained themes relating to academic examinations (salient jokes), and one


third involved neutral themes. An effort was made to equate the jokes for character-

istics that might affect funniness, such as difficulty, the incongruity techniques used,

length, and so on. The salience hypothesis would predict that the exam-related jokes

should be enjoyed more just before or during an exam than during a normal class.

However, the results showed that the jokes containing taboo themes were pre-ferred over the other two types in all three experimental conditions. Rather than

supporting the salience hypothesis, these results appear to support motivational-

emotional views such as psychoanalytic and superiority/disparagement theories. Anadditional finding was that all three types of jokes were enjoyed more by the subjects

who were in the middle of an exam than by those in the other two conditions. This

result, consistent with arousal theories of humor, suggests that humor appreciation is

elevated by increased levels of state anxiety. A study by Derks and Arora (1993)

also found little support for the salience hypothesis. In summary, the existing evidence

for the salience hypothesis is inconsistent. This is a topic that merits further

investigation.

According to incongruity theories, the funniness of a joke depends on the unex-

pectedness or surprisingness of the punch line. Thus, the funniest jokes should be

those having the most unpredictable or surprising endings (e.g., Shultz, 1976; Suls,

1972). However, this hypothesis has not been supported by research, which has tended

to show instead that more predictable joke endings are actually funnier than less pre-

dictable ones. For example, Kenny (1955) had a group of participants rate a numberof jokes on the degree to which the punch line corresponded to what they expectedit would be, and another group of participants were asked to rate the same jokes for

funniness. Mean ratings on these two scales were computed for each joke, and the

correlation between them was analyzed. Contrary to the predictions of incongruity-

resolution theory, a significant positive correlation was found: the jokes with the most

predictable punch lines were rated as most funny.

A difficulty with Kenny's study was that the ratings of predictability were made

retrospectively by the participants after they had already heard the punch lines, and

it may therefore have been difficult for them to judge accurately the degree to which

they had been expecting those particular punch lines. To correct this problem, Pollio

and Mers (1974) had participants listen to a number of tape recordings of comedyroutines by Bill Cosby and Phyllis Diller. The recordings were stopped immediatelybefore the punch lines of the jokes were delivered, and the subjects were instructed

to write out what they thought the punch lines would be. The researchers subse-

quently rated the degree to which these predicted punch lines conformed to the actual

punch lines delivered by the comedians. These similarity ratings were found to be

positively correlated with the funniness ratings, smiling, and laughter of a different

set of subjects in response to the same recordings: jokes that were most predictable

were most funny. Like the findings of Kenny (1955), these results appear to contra-

dict incongruity theory. People seem to find a joke funnier when they "see the punchline coming" than when it is completely unexpected. Pollio and Mers concluded that

"laughter is a partial exclamation of achievement rather than an expression of surprise

over incongruity" (p. 232).

3 THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II

Evaluation

Incongruity theories have made an important contribution to our understandingof humor. When they were introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they drew

researchers' attention to cognitive-perceptual aspects of humor, which had been seen

as only having secondary importance in other approaches such as psychoanalytic,

superiority/disparagement, and arousal theories. Incongruity theories stimulated a

great deal of research and further theoretical development that have continued to the

present day (more recent cognitive theory and research will be discussed in the next

chapter). In 1967, when topics such as aggression, sexual drive, and arousal were the

main focus of attention in research on humor, Zigler, Levine, and Gould noted a ten-

dency for researchers to "underestimate the importance of cognitive factors in deter-

mining the degree of laughter" (p. 332). However, the situation has since then been

reversed, as cognitive approaches to humor became the prevailing view, and emotional

aspects became much less frequently studied. This growing focus on cognition in

humor paralleled the trend toward an information-processing orientation in psychol-

ogy generally, as well as related disciplines such as linguistics. More recently, however,

there has been some renewed interest in emotional aspects. In particular, the emo-tional nature of humor has been highlighted by recent brain-imaging studies (Berns,

2004). The contemporary movement known as "positive psychology" has also gener-ated new interest in the study of positive emotions in general and the emotion of

mirth in particular (e.g., Aspinwall and Staudinger, 2003; Fredrickson, 2001).

The research evidence to date generally supports the idea that incongruity of

some sort is an essential element of humor. Some variation of Koestler's (1964) idea

that humor involves the activation of two normally incompatible frames of reference

continues to form the basis of most humor theories today. However, it is importantto note that the concept of incongruity is still rather vague and not well defined

(Ritchie, 2004). Moreover, the different variants of incongruity and incongruity-resolution theories present somewhat different conceptualizations of the function of

incongruity. For example, in both Shultz's and Suls' theories, incongruity is no longer

present at the point where a joke is perceived to be funny, since it has been "resolved"

by then. This is quite different from Koestler's original view, in which the "bisocia-

tion" (i.e., the ongoing incongruity) is what creates the humorous effect, rather

than its removal. Ritchie (2004) has also noted that, although the theories of Shultz

and Suls are generally viewed as essentially interchangeable, there are some subtle

but important differences between them. He suggested that these different theories

may apply to different subclasses of jokes rather than to all jokes, much less all

humor. As we will see in the next chapter, theorists and researchers continue to makerefinements to the ideas and research methodologies of the earlier incongruitytheorists.

Although some sort of incongruity (however defined) seems to be necessary for

all types of humor, there is less evidence for the idea that resolution is also essential.

Theorists subscribing to the incongruity-resolution view typically based their

theories on the joke as the prototype of humor, and tested their hypotheses with


research using jokes and cartoons. In contrast, much of the evidence for humorous

incongruity without resolution comes from non-joke-related humor, such as the

weight judgment paradigm. The processes involved in jokes may not be the same as

those in other forms of humor, such as spontaneous conversational humor (e.g.,

witticisms, puns, slips of the tongue, spoonerisms) and nonverbal humor (e.g., slap-

stick comedy). It may be that incongruity-resolution theories apply particularly to a

certain class of jokes and cartoons, whereas resolution may be less important in other

jokes and other forms of humor. In Chapter 7, I will discuss research by Willibald

Ruch (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998) indicating that jokes and cartoons can be divided

into two general categories on the basis of whether or not they involve the resolution

of incongruity.

As Long and Graesser (1988) noted, jokes and cartoons, which are context-

independent, can be enjoyed in almost any situation, since they contain within them-

selves all the information needed for their understanding. Other forms of humor are

more context-sensitive, requiring information arising from the situation to create the

humor. This is why the latter types ofhumor often lose their funniness when described

out of context ("You had to be there"). This portability of jokes and cartoons is also

the reason why they have been most commonly used in humor research, while

more spontaneous forms ofhumor that arise in the course of social interactions, which

are more difficult to create in a laboratory, are less frequently studied. However, the

study of jokes and cartoons may provide only limited information about other more

spontaneous types of humor. Since jokes and cartoons also play only a minor role in

the humor that most people experience in their daily lives (Mannell and McMahon,1982; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine, 2000), it is important for researchers

to study the cognitive processes involved in other forms of humor besides jokes. For-

tunately, as we will see in the next chapter, theorists and researchers in recent years

have begun to pay more attention to cognitive processes involved in non-joke-relatedhumor.

Another weakness of incongruity-resolution theories is that they try to explain

the cognitive processes involved in joke comprehension without taking the social

context of joke-telling into account. The suggestion that listeners are surprised or

puzzled by an unexpected punch line assumes that they are seeking to understand

humor as they would serious forms of communication, where contradictory informa-

tion is puzzling and unsettling. However, as more recent theorists have noted (e.g.,

Norrick, 2003; Wyer and Collins, 1992), when jokes are told in normal social situa-

tions, they are usually prefaced by cues alerting the listeners to the fact that they are

about to hear a joke ("Did you hear the one about . . ."). Even in the research context,

when jokes are used as stimuli, subjects are told that they will be presented with jokes,

or they are alerted to this fact by instructions to rate their funniness. Since listeners

usually know that they are hearing a joke, they are likely more actively involved in

anticipating the outcome and are not as surprised by the punch line as incongruity-

resolution theories suggested. Rather than being surprising or unexpected, incon-

gruity is actually expected in humor, and, indeed, a lack of incongruity would

be surprising. When people know that they are hearing a joke, then, they likely


anticipate and search for an incongruity, and their ability to predict the incongruity

may even enhance the funniness of the joke. This would explain why Pollio and Mers

(1974) found that the funniest jokes were those in which the subjects were best able

to predict the punch lines. Thus, while the perception of some sort of incongruityseems to play a central role in humor, the incongruity may not need to be unantici-

pated to be enjoyed. This would also account for the fact that jokes and humorous

incidents can often continue to be amusing even after repeated retelling (Eysenck,

1942).

Although incongruity theories and other cognitive approaches make importantcontributions to the study of humor, it is important also to note that they do not ade-

quately account for all aspects ofhumor. In particular, these approaches do not explain

the emotional and social aspects of humor that are the focus of other theories. As wehave seen, many cognitive theorists attempt to subordinate these "tendentious" ele-

ments to the cognitive mechanisms, denying their importance in humor. While

reading these theorists' analyses of various jokes, one is often struck by the degree to

which they completely ignore the seemingly obvious sexual, aggressive, and other

emotion-arousing aspects. As we have seen, though, there is considerable evidence

that sexual and aggressive elements can contribute to the enjoyment of humor inde-

pendently of the cognitive mechanisms. Many jokes are difficult to explain on the basis

of cognitive processes alone. Consider the following joke (from Gruner, 1978, p. 35),

for example:

A woman sideswiped a car driven by a man. The woman climbed out and apologized for the

accident. The man demurred: "That's O.K. lady, it was all my fault. I could see it was a woman

driving your car from half a mile away, and I had lots of time to drive off into a field and avoid all

this."

Incongruity-resolution theories would suggest that the main source of the humor here

is the incongruity of a person taking the blame for an accident that he did not cause

and saying he should have avoided it by driving into a field. This incongruity is

resolved by accessing the stereotype that women are inherently such terrible drivers

that they cannot do anything about it and therefore should not be held respon-sible. What appears to be aggression is merely what enables one to "get" the joke; it

wouldn't be resolved otherwise. However, this sort of explanation seems to ignore the

emotional nature of humor and turn it into a purely intellectual exercise. What is the

source of pleasure in this joke? Is it merely the intellectual enjoyment of playing with

a puzzling incongruity and then discovering its resolution, or is it the emotional pleas-

ure of taking a playfully aggressive jab at women drivers? It is likely a combination of

both. Cognitive processes involving incongruity and resolution are what make the

joke funny, while aggressive elements enhance the feelings of enjoyment. Without the

cognitive elements peculiar to humor, aggression is not funny, but without the aggres-sion (or some other emotional element), incongruity is not very enjoyable. Again, it

is important to remember that any aggression in humor is only playful and not nec-

essarily "serious" (Gruner, 1997).

REVERSAL THEORY

The importance of noncognitive factors in humor was also emphasized by Arthur

Koestler (1964), whose concept of bisociation is often seen as the basis of contempo-

rary incongruity theories. He spoke of the "aggressive-defensive or self-asserting ten-

dency" in humor (p. 52), and suggested that, to be humorous, bisociation must be

accompanied by at least a tinge of aggression. It is likely an exaggeration to say that

all humor involves aggression, but it does seem accurate to say that it involves an emo-tional experience that can be intensified by a range of emotion-arousing topics. Other

emotion-arousing topics besides aggression seem to work as well, including sex and

just plain exuberant fun. As Suls (1983) rather tentatively acknowledged, incongruity-based cognitive theories appear to be theories of humor comprehension but not humor

appreciation. They describe the elements needed to understand and "get" the joke, but

they do not explain the emotional aspects that make the humorous experience so

enjoyable.

REVERSAL THEORY

Overview of the Theory

As noted in Chapter 1, humor is a playful, nonserious activity. Chimpanzees laughin the context of rough-and-tumble play and tickling, suggesting that laughter in our

common ancestry with chimpanzees was likely also associated with play. Laughter in

children also occurs most frequently in the context of play, and humor can be seen as

a way for adults to continue to engage in playful activities, using words and ideas as

playthings. However, surprisingly few of the early theorists recognized the essentially

playful nature of humor. One exception was Max Eastman (1936), who stated that

"humor is play . . . Therefore no definition of humor, no theory of wit, no explana-tion of comic laughter, will ever stand up, which is not based upon the distinction

between playful and serious" (p. 15). He pointed out that, from reading the serious-

sounding descriptions of humor written by many of the past theorists, one would not

know that humor is a playful, lighthearted activity. More recently, Berlyne (1969)

noted the close connection between humor and play, and Gruner (1997) emphasizedthe playful nature of humorous aggression. William Fry (1963) also viewed humor as

essentially a form of play.

The idea of humor as play is made explicit in the theory of humor proposed bythe Anglo-American psychologist Michael Apter (1982; Apter and Smith, 1977),

which is derived from a broader theory of motivation and personality called reversal

theory (Apter, 2001). Although not as well known as the other theories I have dis-

cussed, Apter's theory of humor is quite comprehensive, incorporating many of the

strengths of other theories, and can account for many of the research findings. I

include it here because I view it as a promising framework for an integrative theoryof humor.

What is play? According to Apter (1991), it is "a state of mind, a way of seeingand being, a special mental 'set' towards the world and one's actions in it" (p. 3 1). To


experience humor, we need to be in this playful state of mind. He suggested that play

is characterized by a "protective frame," which is a "psychological safety zone" that

we create to isolate ourselves from the serious concerns of the real world. In play,

stated Apter (p. 14):

we seem to create a small and manageable private world which we may, of course share with others;

and this world is one in which, temporarily at least, nothing outside has any significance, and into

which the outside world of real problems cannot properly impinge. If the "real world" does enter

in some way, it is transformed and sterilized in the process so that it is no longer truly itself, and

can do no harm.

Apter refers to this playful frame of mind as the paratelic state, to distinguish it from

the telic (goal-directed) state that underlies more serious activities. He suggests that

we reverse back and forth between these two states of mind at different times through-out a typical day (hence the name reversal theory).

In the serious, telic state, one is concerned primarily with attaining important

goals, while the means to achieve the goals are secondary. In contrast, in the playful,

paratelic state, one's goals are of secondary importance, and the ongoing activities are

enjoyed for their own sake. The telic state is future-oriented, whereas the paratelic

state is present-oriented. With regard to the relation between arousal and emotion,

Apter rejected traditional optimal arousal theories such as Berlyne's (discussed earlier).

Instead, he suggested that arousal is experienced differently depending on whether

one is in the telic or the paratelic state. In the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant

(anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation), whereas in the paratelic state, low

arousal is unpleasant (boredom) and high arousal is enjoyable (excitement).

Apter (1992) described the many ways in which people seek to increase their level

of arousal in the paratelic state by means of exciting activities such as riding on roller

coasters, hang gliding, and taking other kinds of risks. Even normally negative emo-

tions can be experienced as exciting and enjoyable when one is in the paratelic state,

as demonstrated by the popularity of horror movies. As a paratelic activity, humoralso involves the enjoyment of arousal. According to Apter (1982), emotionally arous-

ing elements that may be present in humor, such as sexual and aggressive themes, are

a means of enhancing these pleasurable feelings of arousal and thus making the humorseem funnier. Similarly, humor involving topics that would normally arouse feelings

of horror, revulsion, or disgust (such as humorous parodies of horror movies, "sick"

jokes, etc.) may be enjoyed because of the way these normally negative emotions add

to the pleasurable arousal when one is in a playful frame of mind. Thus, this theoryaccounts for the "tendentious" aspects of humor in terms of their arousal-boostingeffects. It is also consistent with the research findings discussed earlier indicating that

greater levels of physiological arousal are associated with greater enjoyment of humor,and that residual arousal from exposure to either positive or negative emotional mate-

rial increases subsequent enjoyment of humor.

Reversal theory also addresses the cognitive aspects of humor that are the focus

of incongruity theories. Apter (1982) used the concept of "synergy" to describe a cog-nitive process in which two contradictory ideas or concepts about the same object are

REVERSAL THEORY

held in one's mind at the same time. This is very similar to Koestler's (1964) conceptof bisociation, discussed earlier. Like Koestler, Apter believes that this process occurs

in artistic creativity and aesthetic enjoyment, as well as in humor. In the playful,

paratelic state, according to Apter, synergies are found to be enjoyable and, like the

collative properties in Berlyne's theory, they are thought to increase arousal. Apter

disagrees with incongruity-resolution theories, suggesting instead that humor involves

the simultaneous recognition of incongruous or contradictory viewpoints, rather than

the removal (resolution) of an incongruity. He argues that the punch line of a jokefunctions to create an incongruous synergy rather than resolving it.

Although humor and art both involve these kinds of cognitive synergies or incon-

gruities, Apter suggests that the difference between the two is that in humor one of

the simultaneously held viewpoints involves a diminishment or devaluation of the

object being considered, whereas in art the object is elevated. Thus, the incongruity

occurring in humor makes us see a person, object, action, or situation as less impor-

tant, dignified, serious, valuable, worthy of respect, etc., than what at first appeared.Without diminishment, an incongruity or synergy is not funny. Although not men-tioned in most incongruity theories, this diminishment idea was proposed in the nine-

teenth century by Herbert Spencer, who stated that "laughter naturally results onlywhen consciousness is unawares transferred from great things to small only whenthere is what we may call a descending incongruity" (from The Physiology ofLaughter,

reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 108, emphasis in original). Thus, Apter accounts for

the aggressive elements frequently occurring in humor (which are the focus of supe-

riority/disparagement theories) by suggesting that disparagement in humor is one wayof creating diminishment. However, Apter disagrees with the view of superiority

theorists that humor always involves aggression or disparagement, since diminishment

does not need to be aggressive: it can simply be a perception of something as moremundane or trivial than it first appeared.

In sum, Apter's theory proposes that humor involves the perception of a cogni-tive synergy (i.e., two concurrent but contradictory interpretations of the same object),

in which the second interpretation of an object involves a diminishment relative to

the first, which is experienced in a playful, or paratelic, state of mind. The individual

is either already in this playful frame before encountering the humorous event, or the

event itself causes him or her to switch into the paratelic state. Environmental cues,

such as the laughter of other people or their amusing facial expressions may help to

induce the paratelic frame of mind. Arousal associated with emotional elements in the

joke or situation (and also induced by laughter itself) contributes to the experience of

enjoyment of the humor. Such arousal-increasing elements include surprise, sex,

violence, taboo topics, and disgust. Humor is also enhanced by multiple synergies

occurring simultaneously or within a short period of time, especially if they are inter-

connected and play off each other to produce further comic effects (A. S. Coulson,

2001).

Psychologists Robert Wyer and James Collins (1992; see also Wyer, 2004), at the

University of Illinois, have developed a "comprehension-elaboration theory" of

humor that reformulates and extends Apter's synergy concept in terms of social


cognition using schema theory (which will be discussed in more detail in the next

chapter). They extended Apter's theory by examining the way people comprehendhumor within a social context and exploring information-processing factors such as

comprehension difficulty and cognitive elaboration. They suggested that humor is

enhanced when it requires a moderate degree of mental effort to understand it, rather

than being too easy or too difficult to understand, and when there is greater oppor-

tunity to elaborate the cognitive synergies involved. Wyer and Collins (1992, p. 667)

used the following joke to illustrate the ideas of reversal theory:

A young Catholic priest is walking through town when he is accosted by a prostitute. "How about

a quickie for twenty dollars?" she asks.

The priest, puzzled, shakes her off and continues on his way, only to be stopped by another pros-

titute. "Twenty dollars for a quickie," she offers. Again, he breaks free and goes up the street.

Later, as he is nearing his home in the country, he meets a nun. "Pardon me, sister," he asks, "but

what's a quickie?"

"Twenty dollars," she says, "The same as it is in town."

The synergy in this joke involves the sudden shift in interpretation brought about bythe punch line. The joke setup leads us to believe that the priest's question, "What's

a quickie?" should be interpreted as "What does 'a quickie' mean?' However, the nun's

reply introduces a different interpretation, namely, "How much does a quickie cost?"

There is also a second shift in interpretation from our perception of the woman as

being a nun to being a prostitute. In each of these contradictory perceptions, both

interpretations are held simultaneously. The diminishment criterion is satisfied by the

fact that the nun, who is first seen as a chaste and holy woman, turns out to be a pros-titute on the side. Although not mentioned by Wyer and Collins, this joke also

includes a sexual theme that may add to its enjoyment. The contemplation of a usually

chaste nun as a sexually loose woman may be somewhat titillating. Any associated

increases in arousal would enhance the feelings of amusement.

Like Apter (1982), Wyer and Collins (1992) emphasized the importance of takingthe social context of humor into account, pointing out that humor is primarily a form

of social communication. For example, they explained the findings of research usingthe weight judgment paradigm (discussed earlier) in terms of cognitive reinterpreta-tion and diminishment in a social context. They suggested that participants in these

experiments, on picking up a weight that is much heavier or lighter than the previ-ous ones, begin to infer that they are being tricked and that the experiment is not a

serious study of weight judgment after all. In other words, the participants reinter-

pret the entire social situation of the experiment, and not just the weights, perceiv-

ing it to be less important than they had originally viewed it to be, and this

reinterpretation elicits amusement. Wyer and Collins went on to discuss in somedetail the ways in which their elaboration of reversal theory can be used to explain all

types ofhumor, including conversational witticisms (irony, satire, teasing, puns), unin-

tentional humor (slips of the tongue, clumsy actions), and slapstick comedy, in addi-

tion to a wide variety of joke types. A detailed explanation of their theory and its

applications is outside the scope of the present discussion. I will return to some of

these ideas in the next chapter.

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Many of the research findings discussed earlier can be viewed as supportive of the

reversal theory account of humor. As already noted, research indicating a positive

linear correlation between physiological arousal and enjoyment of humor (rather than

a curvilinear relationship) is more consistent with reversal theory than with optimalarousal theories (e.g., Godkewitsch, 1976). The theory is also supported by "transfer

of excitation" research showing that residual arousal from both positive and negativeemotions can subsequently enhance the enjoyment of humor (Cantor et al., 1974).

The study by Shurcliff (1968), in which subjects who expected to remove a rat

from a cage found a rubber toy instead, is also consistent with reversal theory. The

discovery of the rubber toy leads to a reinterpretation of the situation that entails a

diminishment of its seriousness and importance as a scientific experiment, inducing a

shift to the paratelic mode, and the amount of anxiety-related arousal generated pre-

viously influences the degree to which the humor is enjoyed. Nerhardt's (1976) initial

difficulties in eliciting mirth with the weight judgment paradigm in the context of a

railroad station also point to the importance of the mental set of the participant for

humor to occur. Reversal theory would suggest that these subjects, engaged in the

goal-oriented activity of traveling from one place to another, were in the telic state,

and were unable to switch into the paratelic state that is necessary for humor.

A study by Mio and Graesser (1991), although designed to test disparagement

theory using metaphors, can also be viewed as a test of the diminishment hypothesisin reversal theory. In this study, undergraduate students were asked to rate the

funniness of a number of metaphor pairs. One metaphor in each pair disparagedthe topic of the sentence, whereas the other one uplifted the topic. Consistent with

the diminishment hypothesis, the disparaging metaphors were perceived to be more

humorous than their uplifting counterparts.

In one of my own studies, I found a significant negative correlation between the

Telic Dominance Scale and several measures of sense of humor, indicating that peoplewho are more likely to be in the paratelic state at any given time also tend to laughand smile more frequently, to notice humorous aspects of the environment, to enjoy

humor, and to use humor in coping with stress (R. A. Martin, 1984). Similar results

were also found by Ruch (1994). Svebak and Apter (1987) also found that the pre-

sentation of humorous material was likely to induce the paratelic state even in indi-

viduals who normally tend to remain in the telic state. These findings support the

view that humor is associated with the playful paratelic state.

Wyer and Collins (1992) also described two studies that were designed to test

some of the hypotheses of reversal theory. In one of these, participants read stories

that could be interpreted in two different ways, one of which was less likely to be

identified spontaneously than the other. In each case, the less obvious interpretation

was more mundane, and therefore involved a diminishment of importance. One story,

for example, appeared to be about two people planning a murder, but it could also be

interpreted as a discussion of the difficulties encountered in opening a pickle jar.

Another story appeared to be the comments of a man making love to a woman, but


could also be interpreted as washing a dog. In different versions of the story, cues

were inserted to make the subordinate theme more or less obvious. The participants

were instructed either to read the stories for understanding (as they would read a mag-azine article) or to read them with the goal of evaluating their humor, and all subjects

were later asked to rate their fimniness.

As predicted by reversal theory, the participants were more likely to rate the

stories as amusing when statements activating the subordinate theme were included,

and this difference was more pronounced in the story comprehension condition than

in the humor evaluation condition. The latter rinding, which seems counterintuitive,

is explained by reversal theory on the basis of the motivational state of the subjects.

Those who were instructed to read the stories with a goal in mind were more likely

to be in the serious, goal-oriented telic state, even though this goal involved makinga humor judgment. They would therefore be less likely to respond to humor than

would those who read the stories without a specific goal, an activity that is more com-

patible with the playful, paratelic state. Incidentally, these findings raise questions

about much of the humor appreciation research conducted over several decades, in

which subjects have been instructed to evaluate the fimniness ofvarious stimuli, where

a serious telic state of mind may have interfered with the enjoyment of the humor.

This may explain in part why fimniness ratings have usually been quite low in such

research.

In a second experiment, Wyer and Collins (1992) presented participants with vari-

ants of the "quickie" joke about the priest and nun. In the different versions, they

selectively removed one or the other of the alternative interpretations of the priest's

question and of the nun's identity. In addition, in some versions, the second inter-

pretation of the nun as a prostitute replaced the first (as in incongruity-resolution

theory), whereas in other versions the two contradictory interpretations (nun and

prostitute) continued to apply simultaneously. Differences in participants' funniness

ratings of the different joke versions supported the prediction that the effects on

funniness of the two shifts in meaning to more mundane interpretations were inde-

pendent and additive. However, no support was found for the prediction that

the simultaneous retention of the two interpretations would be funnier than the

replacement of one interpretation by the other. Further research with a wider rangeof humor stimuli is needed to provide more definitive tests of this reversal theory

hypothesis.

Evaluation

The account of humor provided by reversal theory integrates many of the ideas

from the other theories that I have discussed. Like psychoanalytic and superiority the-

ories, it provides an explanation for aggressive, sexual, and other emotional elements

in humor. These components are seen as functioning to increase arousal, which is

experienced as enjoyable and exciting when one is in the playful frame of mind asso-

ciated with humor. As well, this theory explains the enjoyment of humor and people's

strong motivation for engaging in it in terms of the enjoyment of play. The theory

CONCLUSION

appears to be more consistent with research findings on the role of arousal in humor

appreciation than are optimal arousal theories such as Berlyne's. With further devel-

opments of the theory proposed by Wyer and Collins (1992) and by Wyer (2004), it

also provides a framework for understanding cognitive processes in many different

forms of everyday humor and not just jokes. Unlike most of the other theories that

we have discussed, this theory also focuses more explicitly on the social context in

which humor occurs. Thus, it opens the door to examinations of humor as a form of

interpersonal communication from the perspective of social psychology (which I will

explore in Chapter 5).

The reversal theory of humor also provides an account of the role of humor in

coping with stress (Svebak and Martin, 1997). The capacity of humorous synergies to

induce the paratelic state may make it possible for stressful situations to be experi-

enced as challenges to be approached in a playful way rather than as serious threats

(R. A. Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, and Dobbin, 1987). In addition, the diminishment

aspect of humorous synergies means that humor may be used to reframe anxiety-

arousing events or problems as less threatening than they first appear (Kuiper et al.,

1993). Although reversal theory is not as widely known among humor researchers, it

offers a number of hypotheses that are deserving of further investigation.

More generally, the view of humor as play reminds us that humor is a nonseri-

ous, playful activity that differs from more serious modes of thinking. Many of the

theories of humor seem to forget this fact, describing the cognitive processes involved

in humor comprehension as though they had to do with serious information pro-

cessing. A play view of humor suggests that jokes may be viewed as a way of playingwith cognitive structures and mechanisms, which have evolved in humans for the nor-

mally "serious" purpose of making sense and surviving in the world, but in humor are

temporarily being manipulated "for fun." Both the teller and the listener of a joke are

collaborating in a playful activity, in which multiple interpretations of events are acti-

vated and elaborated in an enjoyable way by introducing an incongruous element into

the narrative. In more spontaneous forms of humor, people may play with languageand ideas or use humor to playfully tease one another. However, although humor is

playful and nonserious, this does not mean that it does not have serious functions.

For example, humorous teasing may be a way of expressing disapproval or criticism

to another person in a way that would be difficult to do using a serious mode of dis-

course. If the criticism is not well received, one can always say that one was "just

joking." These sorts of interpersonal functions of humor will be examined in more

detail in Chapter 5.

CONCLUSION

Each of the theories that we have examined in these two chapters contributes a

useful perspective, highlighting certain aspects of humor. By combining elements

from all of the theories, we obtain a more complete understanding of this multi-

faceted phenomenon. Psychoanalytic theory calls our attention to the predominance


of aggressive and sexual themes in many jokes, the feelings of emotional pleasure and

enjoyment that are engendered by humor, and the strong motivation that most peopletherefore experience for engaging in it. It also suggests that some of the elements con-

tributing to our enjoyment of humor may be outside our conscious awareness. Supe-

riority/disparagement theories emphasize the social and emotional aspects of humorand call attention to its paradoxical nature, combining both prosocial and aggressive

elements. This approach also provides a theoretical basis for views of humor as a wayof asserting a sense of victory over the people and situations that threaten us, masteryover the circumstances of life that can otherwise oppress us, and liberation from life's

constraints.

Arousal theories underscore the view that humor represents a complex mind-bodyinteraction of cognition and emotion that is rooted in the biological substrates of

our brain and nervous system. Incongruity theories shed light on the cognitive-

perceptual processes involved in humor, the way it causes us to view people, situa-

tions, and events from the perspective of two or more incongruous and seemingly

incompatible perspectives at the same time. Finally, the reversal theory perspective

combines many of the elements of the other theories, emphasizing that humor is a

form of play in which incongruities are enjoyed for their own sake in the context of

our interactions with other people. It also highlights the diverse ways we experience

humor, including jokes, nonverbal humor, conversational witticisms, and the humor-

ous outlook on the adversities of life that forms the basis of humor as a copingmechanism.

Our review of the early psychological research on humor provides an introduc-

tion to the empirical methods that have been used by researchers to answer age-old

philosophical questions about humor. Based on the findings of these early studies, as

well as theoretical and methodological developments in other areas of psychology, the

theories and research methods used by humor researchers have evolved over the years.

Some of the ideas and methodologies of these early studies now seem outdated, and

many of the answers they provided are still only tentative, but some patterns have

emerged. These studies set the stage for subsequent research, guiding the ongoing

questions and pointing to potentially useful topics of investigation. In the following

chapters, I will discuss more recent developments in the sorts of questions, methods,and findings of humor research in each of the branches of psychology.

CHAPTER 4

The Cognitive Psychologyof Humor

We saw in Chapter 1 that humor is a

form of play, comprising a social context, a cognitive process, and an emotional

response that is expressed through laughter. In this chapter, we focus on the cogni-tive process, the mental events leading to the perception of incongruity that is the

basis of humor. What are the mental processes involved in "getting a joke" or per-

ceiving a situation or event to be funny? In addition, we will examine ways that humorin turn affects other cognitive processes, particularly memory and creative thinking.

Are we likely to remember humorous information better than serious information?

Does experiencing humor cause people to think more creatively?

These sorts of questions fall into the domain of cognitive psychology, which

has been denned as "the study of human mental processes and their role in thinking,

feeling, and behaving" (Kellogg, 1995, p. 4). Cognitive psychologists use experimen-tal methods to study how the mind works. Although they recognize that the brain

does not function exactly like an electronic computer, they often find it useful to

employ a computer analogy in conceptualizing mental processes. Thus, they take an

information processing approach to understand how information is taken in throughour sensory organs, encoded, stored and retrieved from memory, and used in the

comprehension and production of language, problem solving, creativity, decision

making, and reasoning. In short, cognitive psychology is concerned with mental

representations of meaning and the mental processes that operate on those

representations.

83

THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

For the most part, cognitive psychologists have not taken much interest in the

study of humor. Indeed, an examination of the subject indexes of cognitive psychol-

ogy textbooks reveals almost no references to humor, laughter, or related topics. This

is because most cognitive psychologists tend to be interested in more basic mental

processes such as attention, perception, memory, and so on. However, one subarea

within this field where there is some interest in humor is psycholinguistics. As the

name suggests, this is the study of cognitive processes involved in language compre-hension and production. Since much humor is based on language, psycholinguistics

is a natural domain for the cognitive study of humor. In particular, some researchers

within this field who study nonliteral language (e.g., metaphor) have been interested

in humorous types of nonliteral language such as irony (e.g., Colston, Giora, and Katz,

2000; Giora, Fein, and Schwartz, 1998) and sarcasm (e.g., Gibbs, 1986; A. N. Katz,

Blasko, and Kazmerski, 2004).

Cognitive psychology is part of a broader interdisciplinary enterprise known as

cognitive science, which also includes some branches of neuroscience, computerscience (artificial intelligence), and linguistics. All of these disciplines have also made

important contributions to the study of humor, applying their particular research

methods and theoretical approaches. It would be difficult to review the psychology of

humor without also touching on the contributions of these other disciplines. In this

chapter, I will therefore also briefly review some of the contributions to a cognitive

understanding of humor from the disciplines of linguistics and computer science, and

I will explore the contributions of neuroscience in Chapter 6.

We saw in Chapter 3 that cognitive theories of humor have been proposed by a

number of philosophers since the eighteenth century (e.g., Schopenhauer). Duringthe 1970s, several psychological theories were developed that attempted to providemore rigorous and testable formulations of these ideas (e.g., Rothbart, 1976; Shultz,

1976; Suls, 1972), and these stimulated a number of psychological investigations with

many interesting findings (e.g., Deckers and Salais, 1983; Shultz, 1974b; Wicker et

al., 1981). However, these theories were still rather vague and not clearly specified.

Over the past two decades, there has been a flurry of renewed theoretical activity

coming particularly from scholars in linguistics (e.g., Attardo, 1994; Raskin, 1985),

but also in psycholinguistics (e.g., Giora, 1991) and computer science (e.g., Ritchie,

2004). These formulations, based on theoretical, empirical, and methodologicaladvances in other areas of their respective disciplines, have generated new hypothesesabout cognitive aspects of humor that have only begun to be investigated by psy-

chologists (e.g., Vaid, Hull, Heredia, Gerkens, and Martinez, 2003). These advances

will hopefully stimulate further interest among psychologists in the study of cogni-tive processes in humor.

In this chapter, I will first review ways in which cognitive theorists have made use

of concepts from schema theory to understand how we mentally process humorous

incongruities. Then I will briefly look at some of the schema-based theories proposedin recent years by linguists. I will then discuss some of the research methods that have

been developed by cognitive psychologists to study schemas and related cognitive

processes, and will describe some applications of these methods to the study of how

HUMOR, INCONGRUITY, AND SCHEMAS

we understand humorous information, such as jokes and ironic statements. After this

overview of research on cognitive mechanisms and processes in humor comprehen-sion, I will discuss research that has looked at the effects of humor on other aspects

of cognition, particularly memory and creativity. Next, I will discuss the contributions

of artificial intelligence researchers in the field of computer science. Finally, I will

comment on the implications of a view of humor as a form of cognitive play.


As we saw in the last chapter, cognitively oriented theorists and researchers generallyview some type of incongruity as being a defining characteristic of humor. Arthur

Koestler's (1964) concept ofbisociation is an early formulation of incongruity, in which

a situation, person, event, or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspective of

two self-consistent but normally incompatible or disparate frames of reference. Apter's

(1982) concept of cognitive synergy has a similar meaning: two incompatible or even

contradictory interpretations of the same object or event are active in the mind at the

same time. Typically, humor begins with one interpretation of the situation, and then

a second contradictory interpretation is suddenly activated.

Theorists have debated about whether incongruity alone is sufficient for humor

(Nerhardt, 1977), or whether incongruity must also be resolved in some way for it to

be funny (Shultz, 1972; Suls, 1972). As we saw in Chapter 3, research evidence sug-

gests that incongruity-resolution theories may apply to certain types of jokes, but do

not appear to account for all forms of humor (e.g., Nerhardt, 1977). Some theorists

have also suggested that the incongruity must occur suddenly (Suls, 1983), must take

place in an emotionally pleasant, safe, and nonthreatening context (Rothbart, 1976),

must involve an extreme or bizarre discrepancy (Berlyne, 1972), or must be perceivedin a playful, nonserious frame of mind (Apter, 1982). Wyer and Collins (1992), fol-

lowing Apter (1982), suggested that, for an incongruity to be funny, the second inter-

pretation that is activated must involve diminishment, that is, the situation or event

must be viewed as less important, valuable, or admirable than the view provided bythe initial interpretation.

Schemas, Frames, and Scripts

How might these concepts of incongruity be understood from the perspective of cog-nitive science? Cognitive psychologists have conducted a great deal of research on the

way knowledge is represented and organized in our minds. These studies suggest that

information is organized in knowledge structures called schemas (Bartlett, 1932;

Mandler, 1979; Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). The concept of a schema was origi-

nally based on the data structures used in programming languages such as Pascal and

Lisp that were commonly employed in artificial intelligence research (Ritchie, 2004).

A schema is a dynamic mental representation that enables us to build mental models

of the world. Mandler (1979) stated that a schema "is formed on the basis of past


experience with objects, scenes, or events and consists of a set of (usually unconscious)

expectations about what things look like and/or the order in which they occur"

(p. 263).

Schemas describe the general characteristics of an object or event and contain

variables or slots that can assume different values in particular instances. For example,a schema for birds would include variables such as the types of wings, feet, beaks,

tails, and bodies, which may be instantiated in a number of ways in individual birds.

Many different kinds of birds all fit the general schema, with different values for the

different variables. The variables often contain default values that represent the

prototypical characteristic of the object or event. When we catch a glimpse of a bird

or hear about a bird in a story, the schema for birds is activated, and, unless we are

given information to the contrary, we expect this particular bird to conform to the

default values. The acceptable values of variables in a given schema have certain

limits. If we see a drawing of a bird with wings that look like airplane propellers, this

would not fit the expected values of the bird schema, and would therefore be an

incongruity, something that "does not compute" with respect to our mental model of

birds.

Frames (Minsky, 1977) and scripts (Abelson, 1981; Schank and Abelson, 1977)

are particular types of schemas that relate to knowledge about the physical environ-

ment and routine activities, respectively. For example, Schank and Abelson (1977)

described the restaurant script, which organizes information about the normal

sequence of events involved in going to a restaurant (sitting at a table, ordering from

a menu, being served, eating, paying the bill, leaving the restaurant, etc.). When wehear a narrative about someone going to a restaurant, this script is activated and it

leads us to expect certain activities that are normally associated with the script. This

also makes it possible for the narrator to leave out many details that we automatically

fill in as defaults.

The script also tells us what details of the narrative are appropriate and relevant,

and how to evaluate people's actions. As Wyer (2004, p. 199) noted, if we heard that

a man went to a restaurant and proceeded to take off his clothes and start playing a

guitar, this does not fit with the expected values in our restaurant script, and would

be perceived as incongruous. This would stimulate us to reassess the situation and

perhaps modify the script or seek another script that might account for the informa-

tion. For example, we might surmise that the restaurant was in a nudist colony and

the man was an entertainer rather than a patron of the restaurant.

Applications of Schema Theory to Humor

These concepts of schemas, frames, and scripts can be used to explain the nature of

incongruity in humor, and a number of psychological and linguistic theories of humor,based on these ideas, have been proposed (e.g., Norrick, 1986; Raskin, 1985; Wyerand Collins, 1992). In general, these theories suggest that, while we are hearing the

setup of a joke, a schema (or script) is activated to enable us to make sense of the

incoming information. However, information in the joke punch line does not fit with


the schema, causing us to search for another schema that will make better sense. This

second schema typically gives an altogether different (and even contradictory) inter-

pretation of the situation, rather than just a slightly modified perspective. The second

script does not completely replace the first one, however, and so the two are activated

simultaneously. This simultaneous activation oftwo incompatible scripts is the essence

of humorous incongruity and is experienced as enjoyable and amusing. Different

schema-based theories provide somewhat different accounts of these processes, and

some also attempt to account for non-joke-related humor, such as conversational

witticisms and unintentional humor, as well as jokes.

As an example of a schema-based psychological theory relating to social cogni-

tion, Robert Wyer and James Collins (1992) proposed a comprehension-elaboration

theory of humor elicitation (see also Wyer, 2004, for farther discussion of the

model in the context of a broader theory of social cognition). They suggested that

humor involves the simultaneous activation of two different schemas to understand

the same situation or event. In addition, humor is elicited only if the second schema

to be activated produces an interpretation that is diminished in value or importancerelative to that of the initial schema. Thus, humor always involves reinterpreting an

action or situation as being less admirable and more trivial (i.e., less serious) than it

first seemed.

In addition, Wyer and Collins proposed that the elicited humor is greatest whenan intermediate amount of time and effort is required to identify and apply the con-

cepts necessary to activate the alternative schema. If it is too difficult or too easy to

find the second schema, less humor will be elicited. The amount of humor elicited

also depends on the amount of cognitive elaboration that is generated concerning the

event and its implications. Cognitive elaboration has to do with the degree to which

the activated schemas play back and forth on each other, eliciting further conceptsand mental imagery. The more cognitive elaboration is elicited by the humorous

event, the more it will be enjoyed and perceived to be funny. Wyer and Collins also

discussed the social context in which humor occurs, noting that expectations, norms,

motives, and information-processing goals relating to speaker and listener roles need

to be considered in explaining humor elicitation. They showed how the theory can

be applied to account for humor not only in jokes and funny narratives, but also in

witticisms, ironic comments, and fortuitous events that occur spontaneously in social

situations.

Thus, the schema-based cognitive theory proposed by Wyer and Collins is a very

comprehensive one that is intended to account for all types of humor and not just

jokes. It offers numerous interesting hypotheses for future research. While many of

their hypotheses are consistent with previous research findings, others still need to

be tested empirically. In particular, there has been very little research so far address-

ing the hypotheses about non-joke-related humor elicited spontaneously in social

situations.

One of their hypotheses that has not been supported is the idea that the funniest

jokes are the ones that take an intermediate amount of time to process, whereas jokes

that are too easy or too difficult to understand are less amusing. This would suggest


a curvilinear (inverted- U) relationship between difficulty of comprehension and fun-

niness. Contrary to this view, Peter Derks and his colleagues at the College ofWilliam

and Mary found a strong negative linear correlation between participants' ratings of

the difficulty of comprehension of a series of jokes and their rated funniness, with no

curvilinear component (Derks, Staley, and Haselton, 1998). Thus, the easier a joke

was to understand, the funnier it was rated to be.

Similarly, two more recent studies reported by William Cunningham and Peter

Derks (2005) showed that the more quickly participants were able to identify para-

graphs as being jokes, the funnier they found them to be. These authors suggested

that humor comprehension should be viewed as an automatic, expert skill that involves

implicit and sophisticated knowledge of language and multiple meanings. Conse-

quently, the more automatically accessible a humorous message is (due to its personal

relevance and the expertise of the listener), the more amusing and enjoyable it is.

Although these findings suggest that some modifications of Wyer and Collins' theoryare needed, they are not a serious threat to the theory as a whole.

In Chapter 3 I described research on incongruity using the weight judgment

paradigm, in which humor is elicited when research participants lift weights that are

greatly discrepant from those in a series of preceding trials. Lambert Deckers and

Robert Buttram (1990) reconceptualized the weight judgment paradigm in terms of

schema theory, suggesting that the initial weight judgments cause a schema to be built

up, and the final weight is perceived as an incongruity with respect to this schema.

They also drew parallels between the mental processes involved in the weight

judgment task and the processing of jokes. They suggested that two kinds of incon-

gruity may generate humor: incongruity between an expected value and the perceived

value of a variable within a single schema (as in the weight judgment paradigm),and incongruity between two different schemas (as occurs in most jokes). In either

case, they argued, it is incongruity that produces humor, and not resolution of

incongruity.

Wyer and Collins (1992), however, conceptualized the incongruity occurring in

the weight judgment paradigm somewhat differently. Taking a broader social cogni-tion perspective, rather than focusing only on the discrepancy between the expected

weight and the observed weight, these authors discussed the paradigm in terms of the

schemas presumably involved in the participants' perceptions of the experimentalsituation as a whole. Initially, subjects view the experiment as a serious, scientific

enterprise, but when they encounter the extremely light or heavy weight, they beginto suspect that the experimenter may be playing a trick on them. After having them

compare a number of barely discernible differences in weights, why is the experi-

menter suddenly asking them to test a weight that is so obviously much heavier or

lighter? A new schema concerning the situation is evoked ("Could this be a joke?"),

and this schema is enough to trigger a smile or chuckle. In Apter's (1982) terms, this

may also cause them to momentarily shift from a serious, scientific mode into a playful

(paratelic) mode. Thus, Wyer and Collins' approach takes into account the broader

social context of all humor, instead of focusing narrowly on the immediate joke or

stimulus as have most past researchers and theorists. These competing hypotheses

LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR 8*

about the incongruities occurring in the weight judgment paradigm could be tested

in further research, perhaps using some of the schema-based methodologies that I will

describe shortly.

LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR

In recent years, a considerable amount ofwork has been done by linguists in the devel-

opment of formal theories of humor (for a review, see Attardo, 1994). Not surpris-

ingly, linguists who are interested in humor focus on types of humor that are

communicated through language, rather than nonverbal forms like practical jokes or

slapstick comedy. Linguistics comprises a number of subfields, including phonology(the study of speech sounds), syntax (grammatical rules that specify the acceptableform of sentences), semantics (language meaning), and pragmatics (rules for appro-

priate social use and interpretation of language in context). The areas that are most

relevant to humor research are semantics and pragmatics.

Linguists working in the field of semantics are interested in many of the issues

that I have been discussing concerning the way humorous narratives ("texts") are

processed, understood, and interpreted as funny (e.g., Norrick, 1986; Raskin, 1985).

In the area of pragmatics, linguists are interested in the way humor is communicated

in everyday conversation and the functions of humorous communications, such as

joke-telling, teasing, and irony, in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Graham, Papa, and

Brooks, 1992; Norrick, 2003). I will touch briefly on pragmatics later in this chapter,

and will examine it in more detail in Chapter 5 in relation to the social psychologyof humor. In this section I will focus particularly on a linguistic theory from the field

of semantics.

The script-based semantic theory developed by linguists Victor Raskin, at Purdue

University, and Salvatore Attardo, at Youngstown State University (Attardo and

Raskin, 1991; Raskin, 1985), is the most well-developed linguistic theory of humorand the one that is best known to psychologists. This theory attempts to model the

comprehension of verbal humor, with a particular focus on jokes. The theory incor-

porates ideas about scripts (discussed above) and was also influenced by Noam

Chomksy's (1957, 1971) concepts of transformational generative grammars for relat-

ing the deep structure, or underlying meaning, of a text to its surface structure (the

actual words that are used). Raskin's (1985) original Semantic Script Theory ofHumor(SSTH) is meant to provide a formal model of humor competence (i.e., how can a

text be recognized as humorous?).The goal of this theory, then, is to provide a model of a hypothetical

information-processing system that is capable of making sense of a humorous text,

but not necessarily the way humans actually do it. In theory, the model could even-

tually be turned into a computer program for processing humor. Thus, in the lin-

guistics approach, the concern is not so much whether the theory describes actual

human information processing, and therefore linguists typically do not conduct exper-

iments to test their theories on human subjects. Instead, they use logical reasoning to


see whether the theory is internally coherent and whether it accounts for a wide rangeof text examples (i.e., jokes). The ideal test would be to implement it in a computer

program and demonstrate that it is capable of distinguishing between humorous and

nonhumorous scripts.

Raskin's theory conceives of scripts as graphs with lexical nodes and semantic links

between nodes. Scripts are assumed to be nested within scripts and, in theory, all the

scripts of the language make up a single continuous graph, forming a multidimen-

sional semantic network that contains all the information a speaker has about his or

her culture. Words in a sentence are thought to evoke the script or scripts with which

they are associated. The theory also assumes a set of combinatorial rules for com-

bining all the possible meanings of the scripts that are evoked by a text, discarding

those that do not yield a coherent reading, and coming up with an overall, coherent

meaning of the text.

Based on these concepts, Raskin (1985, p. 99) stated the main hypothesis of his

theory as follows:

A text can be characterized as a single-joke-carrying text if both of the [following] conditions . . .

are satisfied: (i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts; and (ii) the two

scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite in a special sense . . .

Thus, when an individual is attempting to understand a joke, a mental script is acti-

vated to make sense of the events that are described in the joke setup. However, the

punch line of the joke introduces elements that are not compatible with that original

script, triggering a switch from one script to another. The punch line makes the lis-

tener backtrack and realize that a different interpretation (i.e., an alternative script)

was possible from the beginning. In order for the text to be viewed as humorous, this

second, overlapping script must be opposite to the first. There are three general waysin which the scripts may be in opposition to one another: actual versus nonactual,

normal versus abnormal, or possible versus impossible. At a more concrete level, script

oppositions may be manifested in terms of such pairs as good versus bad, life versus

death, obscene versus nonobscene, money versus no money, high stature versus low

stature, clean versus dirty, intelligent versus unintelligent, and so on.

Raskin used the following joke to illustrate how the model works:

"Is the doctor at home?" the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. "No," the doctor's young and

pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in."

According to Raskin's theory, the first part of this joke evokes a standard "doctor"

script (which is presumably stored in the listener's semantic network) in which a

patient presents himself at a doctor's residence to be treated for an illness that causes

him to have a hoarse voice, and is told that the doctor is not there. However, the

doctor's wife's invitation for the patient to enter the house anyway does not fit with

the "doctor" script, so the listener must backtrack and reevaluate the text. The infor-

mation that the doctor's wife is young and pretty and that she is inviting the patient

into her house when her husband is away activates a different (i.e., "lover") script.

Both the "doctor" script and the "lover" script are compatible with the text, and these

LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR

two scripts are opposed to one another on the sex versus no-sex basis. Consequently,the joke fulfills the requirements of the theory and is evaluated as humorous. Notethat Raskin's theory is more consistent with Koestler's and Apter's ideas of "bisocia-

tion" and "cognitive synergy" than with Shultz's and Suls' incongruity-resolutiontheories because, in Raskin's theory, both scripts are activated at the same time, rather

than one replacing the other.

Attardo and Raskin (1991) further extended and revised Raskin's original SSTHinto a broader linguistic theory, which they called the General Theory of Verbal

Humor (GTVH), which addresses other areas of linguistics such as pragmatics and

discourse analysis, in addition to semantics. This revised theory is a model of joke

representation, which posits a hierarchical arrangement of six Knowledge Resources

(KRs), or hypothetical databases, that are thought to be involved in the cognitive rep-resentation and analysis of humorous texts. The six KRs, in order from most abstract

to most concrete, are: Script Oppositions (SO), Logical Mechanisms (LM), Situations

(SI), Targets (TA), Narrative Strategies (NS), and Language (LA). Raskin's original

SSTH theory corresponds to the SO component, and is thus just one subset of this

broader theory. LM refers to the "joke techniques" or "pseudo-logic" used to activate

the alternate script in a joke. These include such mechanisms as figure-ground rever-

sal, juxtaposition, analogy, parallelism, and faulty reasoning. SI refers to the people,

objects, activities, and so on, involved in the particular joke. TA (which are not nec-

essarily present in all jokes) refers to the "butt" or victim of the joke. NS refers to the

"genre" or format of the joke (e.g., riddle or expository text). Finally, LA is the actual

wording of the joke.

Attardo (1997) discussed the relationship between the GTVH and traditional

incongruity-resolution theories of humor. He argued for a "three-stage" (setup-

incongruity-resolution) rather than a "two-stage" (incongruity-resolution) model of

joke comprehension. Attardo suggested that incongruity has to do with the SO com-

ponent, resolution corresponds to the LM component, and setup refers to the overlapbetween the two scripts. Note, however, that this formulation is different from tradi-

tional incongruity-resolution theories, since it views the resolution as coming before

the incongruity, that is, the logical mechanism (which Attardo identifies with resolu-

tion) activates the alternative script, which, along with the initial script, creates the

incongruity. Thus, the GTVH (like the SSTH that it subsumes) assumes that humorarises from the concurrent activation of two incompatible scripts, and is therefore

similar to the views of Koestler (1964), Apter (1982), and Wyer (2004) and different

from the incongruity-resolution models of Shultz (1976) and Suls (1972), which

posit that humor is elicited only after the incongruity has been eliminated (i.e.,

resolved).

Attardo, Hempelmann, and Di Maio (2002) developed further the concept of

logical mechanisms, and proposed formulations of the model using graph theory and

set theory. Attardo (1998) extended the GTVH to allow for the analysis of humorous

texts that are longer than jokes. To do this, he introduced a variety of additional con-

cepts such as jab and punch lines, macro- and micro-narratives, levels of narratives,

strands of lines, stacks of strands, and intertextual jokes. (An explanation of these


concepts is beyond the scope of the present discussion.) Attardo also demonstrated

how this more complex model could be applied by using it to analyze a segment of a

television sitcom. Thus, an attempt has been made to extend the theory so that it can

account for spontaneous conversational humor in addition to canned jokes.

Although this brief overview certainly does not do justice to linguistic theories of

humor, it should give readers from psychology some sense of the kinds of theories

that have been developed by linguists, which could potentially be used as a source of

testable hypotheses for psychological research. For example, psychologist Willibald

Ruch teamed up with Attardo and Raskin (Ruch, Attardo, and Raskin, 1993) to

conduct an empirical study designed to test some aspects of the GTVH. In particu-

lar, they evaluated the hypothesis that subjects' perceptions of similarities between

pairs of jokes will decrease in a linear fashion as the jokes differ from each other at

successively higher levels of the KR hierarchy. Research participants were presentedwith pairs of jokes differing from one another at various levels of the hierarchy. For

example, two jokes might be identical in every way except that they involved different

script oppositions, or different logical mechanisms. The participants were instructed

to rate how similar the jokes were in each pair. In general, the results conformed to

predictions, with greater similarities being found between jokes that differed at lower

levels of the hierarchy. However, there were some inconsistencies in the exact order-

ing of the KRs, particularly in the case of LM, suggesting that some modification of

this aspect of the theory may be required.

Another empirical investigation making use of the GTVH was reported by Italian

psychologist Giovannantonio Forabosco (1994), who conducted two experiments

examining the effects of seriality on joke appreciation. In particular, he was interested

in determining whether, when presented with a series of jokes, people find particular

jokes to be less funny if they are similar to ones that they have already seen. Usingthe GTVH framework, the degree of similarity between jokes was manipulated by

varying the number of knowledge resources that they shared. As predicted, the more

similar a group ofjokes were, the more they exhibited a seriality effect, such that those

presented later in the series were rated as being less fanny than those presented earlier.

These investigations provide examples of how psychological research methods mightbe used to test linguistic theories of humor, as well as how linguistic theories mightbe used to inform psychological research.

PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDYOF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR

Semantic Distance

Cognitive psychologists have developed a number of experimental techniques for

investigating hypotheses derived from schema theories. An early approach made use

of the idea of semantic distances between words or concepts based on semantic

differential ratings. This methodology was pioneered by Charles Osgood and his

PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR 92

colleagues as a means of exploring the way meaning is represented in the mind

(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957; Snider and Osgood, 1969). It involved havinga large number of research participants rate particular words or concepts on a series

of rating scales, each scale representing a dimension between a pair of adjectives with

opposite meanings (e.g., hot-cold, fast-slow, likable-unlikable). These ratings were

then factor analyzed to identify a smaller number of basic dimensions (factors) that

capture most of the variance in the ratings.

Using ratings of a large number of concepts and many different samples of par-

ticipants, Osgood and his colleagues repeatedly found three basic orthogonal factors,

which he labeled Activity (active-passive), Evaluative (good-bad), and Potency

(strong-weak). These three factors appear to be basic dimensions by which people

mentally organize meanings that they attach to a wide range of concepts. The factors

can be conceptualized as dimensions of a hypothetical three-dimensional cognitive

"space" in which people store words and concepts in their minds. The factor load-

ings of a particular word or concept can be used to identify where the concept is stored

in this space. Concepts that are similar in meaning are stored closely together in this

hypothetical semantic space, since they have similar loadings on the three factors,

whereas those that are quite different in meaning have different loadings and are

stored at more distant locations. Thus, semantic distances between pairs of words or

concepts can be quantified by means of the difference in their loadings on the seman-

tic differential factors. This technique provided cognitive researchers a method for

investigating the way knowledge or meanings of concepts are organized in people's

minds.

This method was applied to the study of humor by Michael Godkewitsch (1974),

at the University of Toronto, using the semantic distances between pairs of words as

a method of quantifying incongruity. Participants were presented with a number of

adjective-noun pairs and asked to rate them for funniness and wittiness. The degreeof smiling and laughter of participants was also observed. The semantic distance

between the words in each pair was computed on the basis of their loadings on the

semantic differential factors. As predicted by incongruity theory, adjective-noun pairs

that were more discrepant from one another in semantic space were judged to be

funnier and evoked more smiles. For example, the adjective-noun pair "happy child,"

in which both words load similarly on the semantic differential factors, was not seen

as very funny. In contrast, "wise egg," with an intermediate distance, was funnier, and

"hot poet," with a high semantic distance, was even funnier. Although, admittedly, the

humor evoked by these word pairs was not very great, it was systematically related to

the semantic distance between the two words in each pair, providing support for

incongruity theories of humor.

Tim Hillson and I also employed a semantic distance procedure to model the

concept of resolution as well as incongruity in such simple verbal stimuli (Hillson and

Martin, 1994). We hypothesized that word pairs that are quite distant on some dimen-

sions of semantic space (incongruity) but are also quite close on other dimensions

(resolution of incongruity) might be funnier than those that are either distant or close

on all dimensions. We employed a methodology, called the domain-interaction


approach, which had previously been used in the study of metaphors by other

researchers (e.g., Trick and Katz, 1986). As humor stimuli, we used simple metaphor-like statements combining two concepts in the form "A is the B of A's domain" (e.g.,

"George Bush is the buzzard ofworld leaders"). The domains used were actors, world

leaders, birds, makes of cars, foods, and magazines, and within each domain we used

four nouns (e.g., Sylvester Stallone and Woody Allen were two of the actors).

Semantic differential ratings provided by a group of subjects on these nouns and

domain names were factor analyzed, yielding four factors. We identified two of the

factors as domain-distinguishing (i.e., different nouns within a given domain were

found to have very similar loadings on these two factors, while nouns from different

domains had more distant loadings). The other two factors were identified as domain-

insensitive (i.e., different nouns within the same domain could have quite different

loadings on these two factors). On the basis of these factor loadings, two types of

semantic distance between the nouns were computed: a within-domain distance (using

the domain-insensitive factor loadings), and a between-domain distance (using the

domain-distinguishing factor loadings). We considered between-domain distance to

be a way of operationally defining incongruity (greater distance = greater incongruity),

and within-domain distance to be a way of operationalizing resolution (less distance

=greater resolution).

We then created metaphor-like sentences using pairs of nouns from different

domains and asked a second group of participants to rate them for funniness. As pre-

dicted (and consistent with the findings of Godkewitsch, 1974), the between-domain

distance (incongruity) of the noun pairs in each sentence showed a significant posi-

tive correlation with the funniness ratings of the jokes. That is, noun pairs with greater

between-domain distance were rated as more funny. Also as predicted, within-domain

distance (resolution) showed no simple correlation with funniness, but did produce a

significant interaction with between-domain distance in predicting funniness ratings.

In particular, sentences that were rated as most funny were those that showed both

high between-domain distance (incongruity) and low within-domain distance (reso-

lution). To illustrate, a sentence that received a relatively high mean humor rating was

"Woody Allen is the quiche of actors." The between-domain semantic distance

between Woody Allen and quiche was large (actors are quite different from foods on

some dimensions), but the within-domain distance was small (Woody Allen and

quiche are quite similar in some ways within their respective domains). Thus, there

is incongruity but also some sort of resolution to the incongruity (i.e., the incongruity"makes sense" in some way).

The semantic distance approach did seem to capture some relevant dimensions

of humor, as it was able to systematically predict funniness ratings of simple verbal

material. It could still be a useful method for exploring various additional parametersthat may be relevant to some types of humor. However, this technique has several

limitations. It provides only a static picture of the organization of semantic meaning,and is therefore not useful for examining the processes whereby cognitive structures

(schemas) are activated over time in processing humorous information. It also assumes

PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR 9!

that cognitive organization is the same in all people, and, because mean ratingsare averaged across large numbers of participants, it is not amenable to studying in-

dividual differences in humor comprehension. In addition, it allows only for the studyof simple "pseudo-jokes" made up of word pairs, rather than more complex real jokesand other natural forms of humorous material.

Semantic Priming Techniques

More recently, cognitive psychologists have developed a number of more sophisti-

cated experimental techniques for studying schema activation in real time with morenaturalistic stimuli. An example of such techniques is the use of lexical decision tasks

to determine whether or not a particular schema has been activated (primed) as a result

of exposure to some previous information. In these tasks, research participants are

presented with a string of letters on a computer screen and are asked to indicate as

quickly as possible whether the letter string is a real word or a nonword (i.e., a random

string of letters) by pressing one of two keys associated with each of these options.The reaction time for making this response is measured in milliseconds.

Studies have shown that, on those trials in which the target letters form a word,if the word on the screen is semantically related to a schema that has been previouslyactivated (or "primed"), participants will respond faster than if it is not related to an

activated schema, presumably because the information is more readily accessible in

their minds. For example, if participants have been thinking about cats (and therefore

the cat schema has been activated) they will respond more quickly to the word whiskers

(which is semantically related to the cat schema) than they would if they had been

thinking about automobiles and an automobile schema was therefore primed. Con-

sequently, this methodology can be used by researchers to determine whether or not

a particular schema has been activated in an individual at a given point in time. For

example, this sort of lexical decision task has been used by psycholinguists to deter-

mine the way various scripts become activated while people are reading narrative texts

(e.g., Sharkey and Mitchell, 1985).

Recently, psychologists have begun to make use of techniques such as the Lexical

Decision Semantic Priming Task in the study of humor comprehension. For example,

Jyotsna Vaid and her colleagues (2003) at Texas A&M University used this techniqueto study schema activation during the reading of jokes. Based on incongruity theory,

they hypothesized that an initial schema (SI) is activated during the joke setup, and

a second, surprising or incongruous, schema (S2) is activated later in the joke. For

example, in the joke about the patient and the doctor's wife discussed previously, SI

would be the "doctor" script and S2 would be the "lover" script. These researchers

were interested in determining whether S2 becomes activated relatively early while

reading the setup or whether it is not activated until the punch line. They also wished

to determine whether S2 replaces SI, so that only S2 remains active by the end of

the joke (the selective attention view), or whether both SI and S2 remain activated

concurrently right up to the end of the joke (the concurrent activation view). This


question is relevant to the competing predictions made by incongruity-resolution

theories, such as those of Suls (1972) and Shultz (1976), versus concurrent activation

theories such as those of Attardo and Raskin (1991) and Wyer and Collins (1992).

Vaid and her colleagues presented participants with a series of jokes printed on a

computer screen. Each joke was divided into three segments, with the setup beingdivided into two parts to form the first two segments, and the punch line forming the

third segment. After each segment, the subjects were presented with a lexical deci-

sion probe involving words that were semantically related to either the initial schema

(SI) or the second (incongruous) schema (S2) (the schemas had been identified in

pretesting of the jokes with a different group of subjects). If, after a particular joke

segment, reaction times for making a particular word-nonword discrimination were

significantly shorter than those found in a baseline test, this would indicate that the

schema associated with the particular word was activated by that point in processingthe joke.

The results revealed that the initial schemas (SI) were activated during the pre-

sentation of the first two segments of the jokes (i.e., throughout the setup), whereas

the incongruous second schemas (S2) became activated during the second segment

(i.e., the second half of the setup). Unexpectedly, however, neither of the schemas was

found to be activated at the final time point (immediately after the punch line). These

results were difficult to explain. On the one hand, they seemed to show some supportfor the concurrent activation view, since S2 was not more strongly activated than SI

by the end of the joke. On the other hand, though, the lack of activation of either

schema by that point was inconsistent with either hypothesis. This finding needs to

be replicated in further research before firm conclusions can be drawn. Interestingly,

the finding that S2 was primed well before the punch line suggests that numerous

potential schemas may be activated even before the incongruity is encountered. This

finding seems to provide additional evidence, consistent with the findings of Kenny(1955) and Pollio and Mers (1974), discussed in Chapter 3, that the recipients of a

joke have already anticipated the "true" meaning of the joke well before they hear the

punch line, rather than it being unexpected (as suggested by incongruity-resolution

theories).

In a second experiment, Vaid and her colleagues (2003) used the same method-

ology to examine the activation of the two schemas more than four seconds after a

joke was presented, giving the participants ample time to process the joke meaning.

Here, the results showed priming for the second schema (S2) but not for the initial

schema (SI). These findings were interpreted as supporting the selective attention

view, since only the second joke meaning appears to be primed after the joke is fully

processed. Because they did not include lexical decision probes at times closer to the

ending of the joke, however, these results are not conclusive. Further research is

needed to replicate these studies and to investigate the priming of schemas at multi-

ple time points during and after the presentation of jokes.

Other methods that have been developed for psycholinguistic research on schema

activation could also be adapted to address research questions relating to humor. An

example is the Cross-Modal Lexical Priming Task, which was used by Stewart and

COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR: IRONY AND SARCASM

Heredia (2002) to study schema activation during metaphor comprehension. In this

technique, auditory information (e.g., a joke or funny narrative) is presented to

research participants via headphones, and probe words related to various schemas are

presented visually on a computer screen at precise moments during the auditory pre-

sentation. The participants are instructed to read these probe words aloud as quickly

as possible, and the reaction times for reading the words are recorded. Since words

that are semantically related to currently activated schemas are spoken more quickly

than those unrelated to activated schemas, this is another way of testing whether or

not particular schemas have been primed.Another method is the Word Fragment Completion Test (e.g., Giora and Fein,

1999) in which participants are instructed to complete a fragmented (partially spelled

out) word with the first word they can think of. Words that are semantically more

closely related to currently primed schemas can be completed more quickly. Thus,

these methods can be used to determine whether particular schemas have been acti-

vated at particular points during the processing of jokes and other humorous texts.

As this brief overview shows, these sorts of techniques hold a great deal of promisefor cognitive research on humor, enabling researchers to test specific hypotheses about

the time course of schema activation during the processing of humorous texts. Morestudies are needed to replicate the initial findings of Vaid et al. (2003), to clarify the

patterns that have been observed, and to broaden the scope of inquiry. These authors

listed a number of unanswered research questions, including the precise timing and

duration of activation of the schemas, the role of individual differences in joke pro-

cessing, the effects of manipulating subjects' expectations about whether or not they

will be encountering humorous materials, the degree to which meaning activation in

joke processing is subject to strategic versus automatic control, and the processes

involved in different types of humorous texts besides jokes, such as humor occurring

spontaneously in conversation (e.g., irony, witticisms). Besides greatly enriching our

understanding of the cognitive processes involved in humor, the results of these sorts

of investigations should help to address long-standing debates among theorists, such

as the debate about incongruity versus incongruity-resolution as the basis of humor.

COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR:IRONY AND SARCASM

Much of the past theoretical and empirical work on cognitive aspects of humor has

focused particularly on jokes. For example, Attardo and Raskin's GTVH was designed

primarily to explain joke comprehension. However, as noted in Chapter 1, most of

the humor that we encounter in everyday life is not in the form of "canned" jokes

(R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine, 2000). Much everyday humor arises from

spontaneous intentional and unintentional verbal and nonverbal behaviors of people

interacting with one another, such as witty retorts, wordplay, banter, teasing, irony,

sarcasm, slips of the tongue, practical jokes, and pratfalls (Long and Graesser, 1988;

Norrick, 1993, 2003).


Since jokes are context-free and self-contained, and can be told in many conver-

sational contexts, they are relatively easy to analyze and they lend themselves well to

experimental research. Conversational humor, however, depends more on the con-

stantly changing social context and therefore poses greater challenges for theorists

and researchers. Nonetheless, some theoretical and empirical work has been done in

this area in recent years by cognitive psychologists (particularly psycholinguists)

and linguists (primarily those working in the areas of pragmatics and discourse

analysis). For example, Wyer and Collins (Wyer, 2004, 1992) showed how their com-

prehension-elaboration theory of humor elicitation can be used to account for

many types of witticisms as well as unintentional humor and even nonverbal humor.

Norrick (1986) also applied his schema conflict theory to a variety of conversational

witticisms in addition to jokes, including witty retorts, quips, and one-liners. Lippmanand Dunn (2000) also conducted a series of experiments on appreciation and memoryfor puns.

One type of conversational humor that has received particular theoretical and

empirical attention in recent years is irony. Irony is a figure of speech that commu-nicates the opposite of what is said. For example, someone who says "What a beau-

tiful day!" during a bleak and miserable day is actually communicating "What an awful

day." Although irony is not always funny, it can be a source of humor. Irony is also

closely related to sarcasm, which depends for its effect on "bitter, caustic, and other

ironic language that is usually directed against an individual" (Gibbs, 1986, p. 3). For

example, if someone says "You're a fine friend" to someone who has been unkind, this

is an ironic statement that is also sarcastic.

Psycholinguist Rachel Giora and her colleagues at Tel Aviv University have pro-

posed a graded salience theory of humor that is based on pragmatics and focuses pri-

marily on irony. Giora (1985, 1995) suggested that there are implicit rules that peoplefollow while engaging in conversation ("discourse"): (1) all messages should be rele-

vant to the topic of conversation (the relevance requirement); (2) successive messagesshould be gradually more informative, and not less informative, than preceding ones

(the graded informativeness requirement); and (3) any deviation from the first two

rules should be "marked" with an explicit semantic connector such as "by the way"or "after all." When we are attempting to understand the meaning of somethinganother person says during a conversation, we are initially guided by the "gradedsalience principle," which dictates that salient meanings (i.e., the more conventional,

common, familiar, or prototypical meanings) are always activated first. If the salient

meaning does not match the context (doesn't make sense), then less salient meaningsare activated. Subsequently, there is a contextual integration phase, in which any

meanings that have been activated are either retained, or suppressed as irrelevant or

disruptive, or permitted to fade.

An ironic statement in a conversation, according to Giora (1995, 1998), conforms

to the relevance requirement, since it introduces information about the current topic

of conversation, but it violates the graded informativeness requirement, since it intro-

duces an improbable message whose salient meaning is either too informative or not

informative enough. To understand the ironic statement, the listener first activates its

COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR: IRONY AND SARCASM

salient (literal) meaning, but, since this does not make sense in the context, must then

activate an "unmarked" interpretation (the "implicature"), and both of these mean-

ings remain activated in order for them to be compared. The incongruity between

the two activated meanings causes the irony to be humorous. In addition to explain-

ing irony, Giora (1991) also applied her graded salience theory to the understandingof jokes. Although this theory is similar in many ways to Raskin's (1985) script-based

theory, Giora 's theory takes the social context of humor into account, and is there-

fore more applicable to non-joke-related humor. Indeed, Norrick (2003) has applied

Giora's theory to various types of conversational witticisms, including puns and

amusing anecdotes.

Some implications of Giora's theory are that comprehension of ironic statements

should take longer than nonironic statements (since it involves activating two mean-

ings), and that both meanings should remain activated after the "true" meaning of the

ironic statement has been understood. These predictions are in contrast to some other

theories (e.g., H. H. Clark and Gerrig, 1984; Gibbs, 1994; Sperber, 1984) that suggest

that, given enough contextual information, irony (and other nonliteral language) is

processed in the same way as literal language (known as the Processing Equivalence

Hypothesis). According to these views, irony should take no longer to understand

than literal language, and only the ironic meaning will be activated.

Although some research findings seem to provide support for the Processing

Equivalence Hypothesis (e.g. Gibbs, 1986), Giora (1995) reinterpreted these findings

in light of her own theory. In addition, Giora and her colleagues have conducted

several experiments that provide evidence in support of her graded salience theoryand against the Processing Equivalence Hypothesis. For example, Giora, Fein, and

Schwartz (1998) showed that reading a statement in an ironically biased context (i.e.,

at the end of a story in which the statement is clearly meant to be taken ironically)

takes longer than reading the same utterance in a literally biased context (where the

preceding story supports a literal interpretation), indicating that more processing is

taking place in the case of irony comprehension. In another experiment, using the

Lexical Decision Semantic Priming Technique described earlier, they showed that

both the ironic and literal meanings of sentences were activated when they were pre-

sented in an ironically biased context, but only the literal meanings were activated in

a literally biased context. Giora and Fein (1999) also found similar results using the

Word Fragment Completion Procedure to test meaning activation.

More recent research suggests that the conflict between the Processing Equiva-lence and Graded Salience Hypotheses may be resolved by taking the social context

into account. Albert Katz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western

Ontario, and his colleagues summarized a body of research investigating the way indi-

viduals process sarcastic statements when they have been provided with information

about the interpersonal context, such as the degree of relatedness and shared knowl-

edge of the participants in a conversation, or the gender and occupation of the speaker

(A. N. Katz et al, 2004). Taken together, these studies showed that the speed with

which people recognize statements as sarcasm depends on their prior information

about the context.


For example, some studies found that, when subjects are told that a statement was

made by a male, they take no longer to read sarcastic statements than literal state-

ments (supporting the Processing Equivalence Hypothesis), whereas when the state-

ment is made by a female, sarcastic sentences take longer to read than literal ones

(supporting the Graded Salience Hypothesis). These findings suggest that, since males

are generally perceived as being more likely to use sarcasm than are females, the sar-

castic meaning of an utterance by a male is more readily available during the com-

prehension process. In contrast, when a woman makes a sarcastic comment, the literal

meaning tends to be activated initially, before the sarcastic meaning is accessed, result-

ing in lengthier processing. Similar differences in processing time were found when

participants were given information about the occupation of the speaker. Sarcastic

statements were processed very quickly when the speaker was described as being either

a comedian or a factory worker, but they required longer processing time when the

speaker was said to be a priest or teacher (occupations that are stereotypically viewed

as less likely to use sarcasm).

Katz and his colleagues (2004) proposed a constraint-satisfaction model to

account for these sorts of findings. According to this theory, different sources of

information about the social context (i.e., constraints) provide probabilistic supportfor different possible interpretations of an utterance (e.g., whether it is literal

or sarcastic). These constraints operate in parallel while a sentence is being processed.If the constraints all point in the same direction, competition between alternative

interpretations is resolved rapidly, whereas settling on an interpretation takes longerif support for different alternatives is nearly equal. Thus, the social context in which

ironic or sarcastic statements are made plays an important role in determininghow efficiently they are interpreted. If all indicators point toward a humorous inter-

pretation right from the start, the incongruity of humor can be interpreted very

quickly.

Other recent psycholinguistic investigations of the comprehension of nonliteral

humorous language have provided further evidence of the importance of taking the

interpersonal context into account. For example, Penny Pexman and MeghanZvaigzne (2004), at the University of Calgary, examined the effect of the closeness of

a relationship on participants' comprehension of ironic insults and compliments.Ironic insults are positive statements that are intended to be taken as criticisms (e.g.,

saying "You're a fine friend" when someone has done something unkind), whereas

ironic compliments are negative statements that are intended to be taken positively

(e.g., saying "Too bad you can't play baseball" when someone has just scored a home

run). Participants were presented with vignettes describing either a close friend or a

casual acquaintance making a positive or a negative statement in a positive or

a negative social context, and were asked to rate these statements on a number of

dimensions.

As expected, when the positivity of the statement was incongruent with the pos-

itivity of the context (e.g., a positive statement in a negative context), the statements

were perceived by the participants to be ironic, regardless of whether the statement

took place between close friends or casual acquaintances. However, the closeness of

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION

the relationship affected the perceived funniness of these ironic statements: irony

occurring between close friends, as compared to casual acquaintances, was rated as

more humorous, especially if it was an ironic compliment. Irony between close friends

(as compared to acquaintances) was also more likely to be perceived as friendly teasing

and less likely to be viewed as having either a positive or negative impact on their

relationship. Interestingly, ironic compliments were rated as being less polite than

literal compliments, whereas ironic insults were rated as being more polite than literal

insults. The authors concluded from their overall findings that humor in the form of

irony plays a role in building and maintaining close relationships. In addition, the

presence of solidarity and closeness in a relationship acts as a cue for interpreting the

intention of the ironic speaker, facilitating the second-order inferences that are needed

to understand such nonliteral remarks. Thus, social factors as well as linguistic factors

are important for understanding irony.

Overall, then, in recent years there has been some debate among psycholinguists

concerning the cognitive processes involved in the comprehension of irony and

sarcasm, and this has stimulated a considerable amount of interesting research (see

Creusere, 1999, for a review). Moreover, as cognitive psychologists have moved

beyond the study of jokes to these more conversational forms of humor, their research

has increasingly taken the interpersonal context into account, examining the effects

of social as well as linguistic factors on cognitive processing ofhumor. Similar research

efforts will hopefully be applied to investigate other types of conversational humorbesides irony and sarcasm. The techniques for assessing schema activation that I have

discussed are potentially useful tools for further creative research in this area.

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION

Thus far, I have examined cognitive processes that are involved in humor compre-hension. I now turn to a discussion of the possible effects of humor on other aspects

of cognition, focusing particularly on creativity and memory.

Creativity

Many theorists and researchers have noted a close relationship between humor and

creativity. Koestler (1964) considered humor, along with scientific discovery and artis-

tic creation, to be forms of creativity, all of which involved the process of bisociation

(discussed earlier). Just as elements like incongruity, surprise, and novelty are seen bytheorists as necessary elements of humor, these are also seen by creativity theorists as

defining characteristics of creativity (e.g., Besemer and Treffinger, 1981; Mednick,

1962). Thus, both humor and creativity involve a switch of perspective, a new way of

looking at things. Indeed, many creativity researchers consider humor to be essen-

tially a type of creativity. Consequently, some measures of creative ability or creative

personality that they have developed include assessments ofhumor among their items

(e.g., G. A. Davis and Subkoviak, 1975; Torrance, 1966).


Several studies have also investigated the creativity involved in subjects' humor-

ous productions (e.g., Derks, 1987; Derks and Hervas, 1988). Murdock and Ganim

(1993) reviewed the theoretical literature on humor and creativity, and concluded that

humor can be considered a subset of creativity, recommending that they be studied

within similar conceptual frameworks. However, O'Quin and Derks (1997) disagreed

with this view. On the basis of the existing research evidence, they concluded that,

although there are close theoretical links between the two, creativity and humorshould be considered two separate but partially overlapping domains.

A large number of studies have examined the relation between trait measures of

sense of humor and measures of creative abilities and traits, indicating a moderate

relationship between the two (see O'Quin and Derks, 1997, for a review). Thus, indi-

viduals with a greater sense of humor also tend to be more creative in other areas.

However, this correlational research does not provide evidence of a causal influence.

Indeed, O'Quin and Derks (1997) pointed out that the two may be related due to the

common influence of a third variable, such as intelligence. Here I am interested par-

ticularly in the potential effects ofhumor on creativity. Does exposure to humor cause

people to be more creative in their thinking? There are at least two possible mecha-

nisms by which humor may be expected to affect creativity. First, the flexible thought

processes and activation of multiple schemas involved in the processing of incon-

gruities in humor may facilitate the flexible and divergent thinking required for cre-

ativity (Belanger, Kirkpatrick, and Derks, 1998). Second, the positive emotion (i.e.,

mirth) associated with humor may reduce tension and anxiety, resulting in less rigid-

ity of thinking and an enhanced ability to relate and integrate divergent material (Isen,

Daubman, and Nowicki, 1987).

A number of experiments have provided considerable evidence that exposure to

humor produces an increase in people's creative potential. Israeli psychologist Avner

Ziv (1976) compared scores of tenth grade students on two tests of verbal creativity

after they had either listened to a recording of a popular comedian or engaged in a

nonhumorous activity. Compared to the controls, those in the humor condition

obtained significantly higher scores on measures of fluency, flexibility, and original-

ity, as well as total creativity.

In the 1980s, psychologist Alice Isen, at the University of Maryland, and her col-

leagues conducted a series of studies demonstrating facilitative effects of positive

emotion on creativity (Isen et al., 1987; Isen, Johnson, Mertz, and Robinson, 1985).

Creativity was assessed by a variety of methods, including the Remote Associates Test,

unusual word associations, and problem-solving tasks requiring creative ingenuity.

Although Isen and her colleagues conceptualized their findings in terms of positive

affect in general rather than humor in particular, in most of these studies they used

exposure to comedy films as one method of inducing positive emotion. The studies

generally showed that exposure to comedy resulted in more creative responses as com-

pared to emotionally neutral or negative control conditions. Since these findings also

occurred with nonhumorous methods of inducing positive emotions, it appears that

the creativity-enhancing effects of humor are likely due to effects of mirth (i.e., the

emotional component of humor) on cognition rather than to a more cognitive mech-

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION 1(

anism such as the idea that activation of multiple schemas in humor producesincreased cognitive flexibility. Other research has shown that positive emotional states

(including humor-related mirth) affect a variety of cognitive processes including

memory, judgment, willingness to take risks, cognitive organization, and decision

making (Isen, 1993, 2003; Isen and Daubman, 1984).

In summary, there is evidence that exposure to humor can enhance creative think-

ing, and that this effect is likely mediated by the positive emotion (i.e., mirth) asso-

ciated with humor. These findings may have practical implications for applications of

humor for enhancing creative thinking and problem solving in such fields as educa-

tion and business (which will be discussed in Chapter 11).

Memory

Does humor enhance memory? More specifically, is humorous material remembered

better than nonhumorous material? Educators and advertisers have long believed in

the beneficial effects on memory of humorous lectures and advertisements. There are

several reasons why humor might be expected to enhance memory (Schmidt, 1994).

First, the positive emotion associated with humor may have positive effects on

memory in a manner similar to the demonstrated effects of nonhumorous emotional

arousal. Second, humor may enhance attention to stimuli due to the novelty and sur-

prise involved in humorous incongruity. Third, humorous material may be rehearsed

more than nonhumorous material, resulting in increased retention. Finally, humor

may affect retrieval strategies, biasing subjects to retrieve humorous material before

nonhumorous material.

Several early studies investigated memory-enhancing effects ofhumor in the con-

texts of education (e.g., Kaplan and Pascoe, 1977; Kintsch and Bates, 1977) and adver-

tising (e.g., C. P. Duncan, Nelson, and Frontzak, 1984; Gelb and Zinkhan, 1986) with

mixed results. However, most of these did not provide adequate control over possi-

ble confounding factors such as the emotional content of the materials to be remem-bered. More recently, Steven Schmidt, a psychologist at Middle Tennessee State

University, has conducted a series of well-designed experiments that demonstrated

enhanced memory effects of humor, and explored a number of competing hypothe-ses regarding the mechanisms involved (Schmidt, 1994, 2002; Schmidt and Williams,

2001).

In a series of six experiments, Schmidt (1994) examined the effects of humor on

sentence memory by presenting participants with lists of humorous and nonhumor-ous sentences. To control for possible nonhumor-related differences between the sen-

tences, humorous and nonhumorous versions of the same sentences were used.

Pretesting of the sentences revealed that they did not differ on ratings of bizarreness,

difficulty, meaningfulness, or familiarity, but did differ greatly on rated funniness. Thestudies revealed that humorous sentences were recalled better than nonhumorous

sentences when they were presented in lists containing both types of sentences. In

fact, enhanced recall of the humorous sentences was found at the expense of the

nonhumorous sentences in the same list. In other words, when both humorous and


nonhumorous sentences were presented in the same list, participants performed better

in recalling the humorous sentences but worse in recalling the nonhumorous sen-

tences, relative to their performance when either type of sentence was presented alone.

However, when the two types of sentences were presented in separate homogeneouslists, there was no difference in recall for the two types. These effects were found

with free and cued recall, in incidental and intentional learning, and on a variety of

measures of sentence access. As to the possible mechanisms involved, Schmidt con-

cluded that the findings were inconsistent with simple arousal, surprise, and retrieval

explanations, but consistent with the hypothesis that humorous material receives both

increased attention and rehearsal as compared to nonhumorous material.

Schmidt and Williams (2001) examined further the effects of humor on memory,

using cartoons instead of humorous sentences. Participants were better able to recall

the gist of original cartoons than nonhumorous or "weird" (but not funny) versions

of the same cartoons. However, these memory differences were not found for detailed

cartoon information such as the actual wording of the captions. Schmidt (2002) repli-

cated the findings with cartoon stimuli and also took heart rate measures of partici-

pants to examine the role of physiological arousal in the memory effect of humor. Theheart rate results did not show evidence for an enhanced orienting response to the

humorous materials (contrary to the prediction of Deckers and Hricik, 1984), but a

greater secondary heart-rate deceleration to the humorous cartoons suggested that

different encoding processes occurred with the humorous as compared to the non-

humorous stimuli. Overall, these findings suggest that humor serves as a sort of

mnemonic technique or memory aid, causing greater elaboration of information and

therefore enhancing its transfer and storage in long-term memory.If humor aids memory, why is it often so difficult to remember a joke? Schmidt

and Williams (2001) commented that their findings help to explain this phenomenon,since humor enhances memory for the gist of the material, but not for details such as

the exact wording. The funniness of a joke may help us to remember what it was

generally about, but may not help us to remember the exact wording of the punchline. More effortful repetition and elaboration seems to be needed to memorize a jokeif one wishes to be able to recall it later. The authors also suggest that past research

showing mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery (the "bizarreness effect") may have

been due to humorousness rather than bizarreness, since the weird cartoons without

humor in their study did not have an effect on memory.Peter Derks and his colleagues, at the College of William and Mary, used exper-

imental procedures similar to those of Schmidt (1994) to examine potential memoryeffects of "tendentious" (i.e., sexual and aggressive) humor compared to nontenden-

tious humor (Derks, Gardner, and Agarwal, 1998). They partially replicated Schmidt's

findings of memory-enhancing effects of humorous material, and also found a strongeffect for tendentiousness, indicating that emotionally arousing elements such as sex

and aggression further enhance these memory effects. Lippman and Dunn (2000) also

found some evidence for memory-enhancing effects of humor using puns.In summary, these studies provide quite convincing evidence that humorous

information is recalled better than nonhumorous information when both are pre-

COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR 1C

sented in the same context. If only humorous material is presented, there is no ap-

parent benefit for memory. However, the recall of humorous material appears to be

at the expense of memory for nonhumorous information presented at the same time.

These findings have potential implications for education and advertising. For example,humor may enhance memory for the humorous material but diminish memory for

other information contained in a lecture or advertisement. Humor therefore should

be integrated with the course content or product. In addition, constant use of humorwill have little effect on retention. Instead, humor should be used to illustrate impor-tant concepts and not background or peripheral material.

COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR

Is it possible to program a computer to generate and/or understand humor? Althoughresearchers in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have, for the most part, ignored

humor, it can be argued that any attempt to develop a truly intelligent computer

system will ultimately need to address the problem of humor. Graeme Ritchie, a lin-

guist and AI researcher at the University of Edinburgh, along with his students and

colleagues, is currently the most active scholar in the field of computational humor

(Binsted and Ritchie, 1997, 2001; Ritchie, 2001, 2004). Ritchie (2001) suggested that

AI investigations of humor can not only help to clarify our theories of humor, but can

also lead to important discoveries about human intelligence, language, problem

solving, and information processing more generally.

Moreover, as artificial intelligence systems, such as robots, become increasingly

sophisticated in the future, it may be important for them to be able to generate and

understand humor in order to communicate more effectively and in a more congenial

way with the humans with whom they interact. On a more philosophical note, we can

consider whether truly intelligent robots might even require a sense ofhumor in order

to cope with the incongruous and inconsistent perspectives that confront any intelli-

gent being functioning autonomously in the real world and interacting with other

intelligent beings. The idea that humor is more than just a luxury is suggested by the-

ories that it evolved in humans as a mode of interpersonal communication for dealingwith conflicting perspectives (Mulkay, 1988), or as a cognitive coping mechanism that

is necessary for survival (Dixon, 1980). These questions are similar to questions about

whether artificially intelligent systems functioning in the real world would requiresome analog of emotion (Trappl, Petta, and Payr, 2002).

Ritchie (2001, 2004) has advocated an "experimental AI" approach, in which

computer programming is used as a means of testing cognitive (and particularly

linguistic) theories of humor. In order for a theory to be implemented in a computer

program, it needs to be formal, precise, detailed, and rigorous, conforming to the

principles of generative linguistics and AI. Thus, AI investigations provide a way of

sniffing out fuzzy thinking and faulty logic that might not otherwise be apparent in

theoretical formulations. Unfortunately, according to Ritchie, most of the existing

theories of humor are too vague and imprecise to be of much use to AI. For example,


Ritchie (1999) criticized the traditional incongruity-resolution theories (which I dis-

cussed in Chapter 3), pointing out that the ideas of incongruity and resolution have

not been defined clearly enough and that different theories use these concepts in dif-

ferent ways. In particular, although they are often seen as being equivalent, Shultz's

(1976) theory (which Ritchie refers to as the "surprise disambiguation model") is, on

close analysis, actually quite different from Suls' (1972) theory (the "two-stage

model"). The two theories have different implications and apply to different classes

of jokes (see also Ritchie, in press). Ritchie (2004) has also criticized Raskin and

Attardo's General Theory of Verbal Humor (discussed earlier), as being too vague in

its present form for computer implementation.One reason for the vagueness and imprecision of many theories, according to

Ritchie, is that they attempt to explain too many different types of humor. Ritchie

strongly rejects the quest for a "grand theory of humor" at the present time, arguinginstead that we need to identify specific subclasses that can be thoroughly character-

ized and implemented on a computer. Only after we have done this with a large

number of types can we build up a comprehensive theory that accounts for all kinds

of humor. Accordingly, Ritchie has narrowed his focus to verbal jokes, and even more

narrowly to certain types of jokes that share particular verbal mechanisms (e.g.,

punning riddles).

Although one could theoretically attempt to develop a program that is able to

process verbal texts that are fed into it and determine whether or not they are funny,

Ritchie suggests that the more practical place to begin is with programs that apply a

given theory to generate humorous texts. Human judges can then determine whether

the output of the program is indeed humorous. By observing the behavior of the

program (i.e., the types of jokes it produces), one can obtain useful insights into the

weaknesses of the theory underlying it. This can then lead to further refinements of

the theory and corresponding "tweaking" of the program. Thus, the goal of this sort

of programming enterprise is not so much the program itself but the refinement of

the theoretical ideas underlying it.

Kim Binsted and Graeme Ritchie (1997) have taken this approach in developinga computer program called Joke Analysis and Production Engine QAPE) that gener-ates a specific class of jokes known as punning riddles. These are question-answer

jokes that are based on a pun (e.g., What's the difference between a hairy dog and a

painter? One sheds his coat, the other coats his shed.). Binsted and Ritchie began by

developing a formal model of the punning mechanisms underlying these types of

riddles, identifying a set of symbolic rules about the meaning combinations and textual

forms involved. These rules were then built into a program that also has access to a

large natural language lexicon (dictionary) of the kind used in AI research generally.

This lexicon contains a large number of words, along with information about their

phonetic pronunciation, lexical usage, and syntactic meaning. It is important to note

that this lexicon does not contain any information that could be conceived as inher-

ently "funny." Nonetheless, by searching through the lexicon for suitable word pairs

that meet the criteria described by the rules, and applying various basic templates of

COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR 1(

riddle structure, the program is able to generate a virtually limitless number of novel

riddles.

The following are some examples of the funnier riddles that were generated byJAPE (from Ritchie, 2004):

What do you call a ferocious nude? A grizzly bare.

What do you get when you cross breakfast food with a murderer? A cereal killer.

What's the difference between leaves and a car? One you brush and rake, the other you rush and

brake.

What's the difference between a horse and a wagon? One bolts and jumps, the other jolts and bumps.

Binsted, Pain, and Ritchie (1997) conducted a study to evaluate the output of

JAPE, using a sample of 8- to 11 -year-old children as judges. They presented these

subjects with a random selection ofJAPE-produced riddles, human-produced riddles

(taken from published joke books), nonsense nonjokes, and sensible nonjokes. Thechildren were asked to determine whether each text was a joke and, if so, how funnyit was and whether they had heard it before. The results showed that the JAPE-produced riddles were identified as jokes just as reliably as the human-produced ones,

and both were easily distinguished from the non-jokes. Although the JAPE-producedjokes were rated as less funny, on average, than the human-produced jokes, a numberof the JAPE riddles were rated as being just as funny as those produced by humans.

Further analysis of the less funny riddles produced byJAPE may lead to future refine-

ments of the program and, at the same time, a more precise linguistic theory of this

type of humor.

In addition to the JAPE program, Binsted and Ritchie (2001) analyzed the struc-

ture and formal regularities of another class of joke, which they referred to as "story

puns," and offered some suggestions about a possible computational model for their

production. Ritchie (2004) also described a number of other computer programs that

have been developed by other researchers using a variety of approaches. As one

example, Bruce Katz (1993) took a connectionist approach in developing a neural

network model of incongruity in humor that attempted also to incorporate conceptsof arousal, sexual and aggressive themes, and hedonic tone (i.e., mirth).

Although computational models such as JAPE appear to be quite promising,Ritchie (2001, 2004) acknowledges that they are still at a very early stage of develop-ment. The implementation rules underlying this program are not tied to any real

hypotheses about humor in general, and it is not clear how to generalize from this

model to other forms of humor. In addition, a complete computational model of

humor will ultimately require the development of truly intelligent systems with a vast

foundation of encyclopedic knowledge coupled with sophisticated reasoning abilities.

Nonetheless, Ritchie contends that steps can be taken toward this ultimate goal by

breaking the problem into smaller chunks, identifying specific classes of humor, and

developing rigorous formal descriptions that can be implemented using existing tech-

nology. "The overall message," states Ritchie (2001, p. 132), "is that endeavoring to

develop computational models of humor is a worthwhile enterprise both for artificial


intelligence and for those interested in humor, but we are starting from a very meagerfoundation, and the challenges are significant."

Ritchie has argued that attempts to implement cognitive theories of humor in

computer programs are beneficial to psychologists as well as linguists by providing a

way of testing theories and alerting theorists to weaknesses in their models. To be

psychologically relevant, however, it is important that the computer simulations

carry out the tasks in the same way that humans are assumed to do. For example,

although computer chess programs are capable of outplaying most of the best human

players, they operate very differently than human chess players, and are therefore not

a very good test of cognitive theories of human chess playing. Similarly, it is not

entirely clear that programs like JAPE generate humor in the same way that humans

do.

Ritchie's recommendation for more narrowly focused theories applied to discrete

types of humor may also be a useful suggestion for psychological humor research,

although this arguably depends on the goals of the individual researcher. If the goal

is to identify general characteristics of humor that distinguish it from other human

activities, then broader, more general theories may be appropriate. On the other hand,

if the goal is to describe in detail how people cognitively process particular types of

humor, then greater progress will likely be made with research aimed at testing spe-

cific hypotheses derived from narrowly focused theories. However, for the purposesof understanding psychological aspects of humor, it may not be as necessary to make

such fine-grained distinctions (e.g., distinguishing between several different classes of

puns), and psychologists may find it useful to partition the humor domain ("carve

nature at its joints") in different ways than do AI researchers. In any case, for the psy-

chologist, advances in AI research on humor may be viewed as a rich source of poten-tial hypotheses for further experimental research. Ritchie (1999) listed a number of

research questions that would be amenable to psychological investigations as well as

studies in AI.

HUMOR AS COGNITIVE PLAY

Most of the cognitive theories that have been developed to date attempt to explain

the processes involved in the comprehension of humor, but they do not address the

question of what makes humor so enjoyable. They may explain how we come to

understand a joke and recognize that something is funny, but they do not explain whywe are so motivated to seek out and participate in many forms of humor during our

daily lives. Indeed, as Max Eastman (1936) noted many years ago, humor theorists

often discuss humor as though it were a very serious business, and you would not

know from reading their writings that they are dealing with something that is inher-

ently pleasurable.

As I noted in previous chapters, humor involves emotional and social as well as

cognitive aspects. The relation between cognition and emotion is a thorny topic in

cognitive psychology generally, and most cognitive psychologists view it as outside

HUMOR AS COGNITIVE PLAY 1C

the scope of their research activities. Ultimately, though, it would seem that a com-

plete understanding of human cognition in general will require an understanding of

the role of emotion. Indeed, there is some evidence that seemingly purely rational

processes, such as decision making, are impossible without some emotional input

(Damasio, 1994).

The view of humor as cognitive play may provide a framework for thinking about

the interaction of cognitive, emotional, and social elements. When we engage in

humor, we are playing with language and ideas (schemas, scripts) in much the same

way that children (and adults) play with physical objects, exploring new and unusual

ways of using them, and delighting in these novel applications. For a child, an ordi-

nary stick can be an airplane, a person, or a rifle, evoking multiple schemas concur-

rently. The incongruity of humor that we have been discussing can be seen as a

manifestation of this play with ideas, where words and concepts are used in ways that

are surprising, unusual, and incongruous, activating schemas with which they are not

normally associated. As discussed in the previous chapter, Michael Apter (1982)referred to the playful elaborations of multiple cognitive schemas as "synergy," and

noted that there is something inherently enjoyable about this activity when we are in

a playful, nonserious state of mind.

This view of humor as cognitive play also sheds light on the mechanisms of

jokes that we have been discussing. The simultaneous activation of multiple schemas

to try to make sense of a joke enables both the joke teller and the listener to engagein playful cognitive synergies. As Forabosco (1992) has pointed out, the "resolutions"

involved in jokes are really "pseudo-resolutions," since they do not actually make sense

in a literal way. Thus, they are a way of playing creatively with the cognitive mecha-

nisms that we normally use in more "serious" contexts for seeking meaning in the

world.

Evolutionary theories of emotions suggest that they evolved because they moti-

vate us to behave in certain ways that have proven beneficial for survival and repro-

duction, avoiding certain situations and approaching others (Plutchik, 1991). As I

noted in Chapter 1 (and will discuss more fully in Chapter 6), research on primatesand other animals indicates that the playful cognitive activity involved in humor likely

evolved from mammalian rough-and-tumble social play. The associated positive

emotion of mirth is what motivates individuals to engage in this activity. Panksepp

(1998) has proposed a "ludic" (playful) emotion system in the brain that underlies pre-

sumably adaptive playful activities (including humor) and their associated positive

emotions. The fact that the cognitive play of humor elicits the positive emotion of

mirth suggests that this sort of flexible, exploratory cognitive behavior has an adap-tive function, perhaps because of its benefits for flexible thinking, creativity, and

problem solving (Fagen, 1981) or as a means of facilitating social interaction and

bonding (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003). Also, as we have seen, the research of Isen

and her colleagues indicates that positive emotional states, in themselves, promotecreative thinking and problem solving as well as fostering social responsibility and

prosocial behaviors such as helpfulness and generosity (Isen, 2003). I will return to

these evolutionary issues in Chapter 6.


CONCLUSION

What have we learned about cognitive processes in humor? The idea that some sort

of incongruity is the basis of all humor seems to be generally supported. However, it

is far from clear exactly how incongruity should be defined or conceptualized, and

whether it is a single mechanism that applies to all forms of humor or whether

we need to invoke different types of incongruity for different types of humor. Con-

temporary theories based on schema and script concepts have contributed a great deal

to our understanding, although further work is needed to make them more precise

and rigorous. These theories suggest that "resolution" of incongruity in jokes maybe best conceived as a mechanism for activating several schemas simultaneously,

rather than a way of replacing one schema with another (as suggested by earlier

incongruity-resolution theories). Cognitive psychologists have developed a number

of techniques for investigating the activation of particular schemas "on line" duringthe processing ofinformation. Future research using these methodologies will be ben-

eficial for conducting empirical tests of the hypotheses derived from schema-based

theories.

Much of the past theoretical and empirical work focused on jokes as a prototypeof humor. However, jokes are a relatively insignificant source of humor in most

people's daily lives, and the cognitive mechanisms involved in them may be somewhat

different from those in other forms of humor. It is risky for theorists to attempt to

develop general theories of humor based only on analyses of jokes. Fortunately, there

is growing interest among cognitive psychologists and linguists in other types of

humor apart from jokes, such as conversational witticisms, irony, puns, and sarcasm.

Here, as well, a positive trend is the increased interest in the pragmatics as well as the

semantics of humor.

Research examining how people actually use humor in everyday conversations

and interactions (including, but not limited to, telling jokes) will likely lead to better

understanding of cognitive as well as social aspects of humor. How a joke is cogni-

tively processed in the context of everyday social interactions (including the social

context of a psychology laboratory) may be quite different from the idealized processesinvoked in semantic theories that do not take pragmatics into account. Indeed, as wehave seen, recent research indicates that information about the social context plays an

important role in the comprehension of conversational types of humor such as ironyand sarcasm. Future cognitive research should also go beyond the linguistic types of

humor and begin to address nonverbal forms, such as slapstick comedy and acciden-

tal humor.

Another limitation of cognitive research on humor is that it has focused almost

exclusively on humor comprehension rather than humor creation. This reflects the

more general state of affairs in psycholinguistics and linguistics, where research on

language comprehension far outstrips work on language production. Although there

have been some isolated attempts by psychologists to address the cognitive processesinvolved in the creation of humor (Shultz and Scott, 1974), this is a topic that awaits

further investigation.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable evidence that exposure to humor affects other cognitive

processes, particularly memory and creativity. Enhanced memory for humorous mate-

rial seems to be due to selective attention to and greater elaboration of humorous ele-

ments at the expense of less humorous information. The effects ofhumor on creativity

appear to be due to emotional rather than purely cognitive mechanisms. The emo-

tional component of humor has not received much attention from cognitively

oriented psychologists and linguists. The view of humor as cognitive play mayprovide a framework for integrating the pleasurable emotional aspect with the

cognitive mechanisms of humor.

As in cognitive science generally, the interdisciplinary nature of the cognitive

study ofhumor is apparent, with important contributions coming from linguistics and

computer science as well as psychology. Indeed, many important theoretical advances

in recent decades have originated in linguistics rather than psychology. However,there is also a small but active nucleus of psycholinguists who have continued to make

valuable theoretical and empirical contributions, particularly in the study of irony and

sarcasm.

At the present time, the field is ripe for further psychological research on cogni-tive aspects of humor. As noted throughout this chapter, there are a great manyresearch questions and hypotheses coming from a variety of theories that could be

readily investigated empirically using the experimental methodologies available to

psychologists. Further research on cognitive aspects of humor may not only providea better understanding of the ubiquitous phenomena of humor, but may also shed

light on other more basic questions of interest to psychologists, such as the interface

between cognition and emotion, comprehension of ambiguous meaning, and cogni-

tive aspects of nonverbal as well as verbal interpersonal communication. Research

questions relating to cognitive aspects of humor could form the basis of a good manyMasters and PhD theses for years to come.

CHAPTER

ss I have noted previously, humor is fun-

damentally a social phenomenon. We laugh and joke much more frequently when weare with other people than when we are alone (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine

and Fischer, 1989). Those rare occasions when we do laugh by ourselves typically

involve "pseudo-social" situations, such as reading a book, watching a television

program, or recalling an amusing experience with other people. The interpersonal

aspects ofhumor are of particular interest to social psychology, which has been defined

as "the scientific study of how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influ-

enced by other people" (Breckler, Olson, and Wiggins, 2006, p. 5). As we will see in

this chapter, humor is one of the methods that people use to influence each other in

a complex variety of ways. Social psychologists study such topics as social perception,

interpersonal attraction, communication, attitudes, prejudice, persuasion, close rela-

tionships, group processes, and so on. It is easy to see that humor can play an impor-tant role in all of these areas.

Social psychology is closely related to several other academic disciplines, includ-

ing sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, each of which has made important con-

tributions to our understanding of social aspects of humor. In this chapter, I will

therefore discuss some of the contributions of these other disciplines along with those

of psychology. I will begin by discussing humor as a method of interpersonal com-

munication and influence, followed by an overview of its many social functions, and

an exploration of how these relate to humorous forms of teasing. I will then examine

113

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

social aspects of laughter, the vocal and facial expression of the humor-related emotion

of mirth. In the remainder of the chapter, I will review research findings on the role

of humor in several of the major topic areas of social psychology, including social per-

ception and interpersonal attraction, persuasion, attitudes and prejudice, intimate

relationships, and gender.

HUMOR AS SOCIAL INTERACTION

Many of the traditional theories and much of the early research on the psychol-

ogy of humor neglected the interpersonal aspects, focusing instead on cognitive and

emotional processes taking place within the individual. Most of the early studies exam-

ined participants' reactions to jokes and cartoons in the laboratory, which does not

provide much information about how humor is normally expressed in everyday social

interactions. In recent years, however, researchers in psychology, as well as other dis-

ciplines, have been giving more attention to social aspects of humor, examining in

particular its functions in interpersonal communication and influence. This change in

perspective has been accompanied by a shift in focus away from canned jokes as the

prototype of humor to other forms that occur spontaneously in the course of ordi-

nary conversation, such as teasing, irony, and witty banter.

I have been suggesting in this book that humor is best viewed as a form of playthat comprises cognitive (nonserious incongruity), emotional (mirth), and expressive

(laughter) components. All of these elements of humor have a social dimension. Thenonserious incongruities that elicit humor typically have to do with funny things that

people say or do. Jokes are almost always about people, not animals or inanimate

objects. The emotion of mirth is also typically shared with other people (see Figure

3). As Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004) have suggested, the shared experi-

ence of mirth serves important social functions in establishing and maintaining close

relationships, enhancing feelings of attraction and commitment, and coordinating

mutually beneficial activities. Laughter is also inherently social, communicating one's

mirthful emotional state to others as well as inducing this emotion in one's listeners

(Owren and Bachorowski, 2003; Russell et al., 2003). Thus, while humor is a form of

play that we enjoy for its own sake, it also serves important social functions that likely

contributed to our evolutionary survival. As I suggested in Chapter 1, some of the

social functions ofhumor may be co-optations in which, with the emergence of higher

linguistic and cognitive abilities and more complex social organization, play-relatedmirthful activities were adapted in human evolution for a wide variety of purposes

having to do with interpersonal communication and influence (Gervais and Wilson,

2005).

Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that people interact with one

another using two basic modes of communication: serious and humorous (referred to

by Victor Raskin, 1985, as the "bona-fide" and "non-bona-fide" modes, respectively).

According to Mulkay, both of these are ordinary, everyday methods of discourse, but

they operate according to fundamentally different principles. In the serious mode, we

HUMOR AS SOCIAL INTERACTION

FIGU RE 3 Most humor occurs spontaneously in the context of ordinary social interactions.

Monica Lau/Getty Images/PhotoDisc

attempt to be logically consistent and coherent, we seek to avoid ambiguity and con-

tradiction, and we assume that there is a unitary external reality that is shared by every-

one. However, this mode of communication is often inadequate, since different

individuals and groups often have quite different perceptions of reality and disagree

about their interpretations of events. When people attempt to communicate, these

multiple realities frequently collide, producing contradiction, incongruity, and inco-

herence, which the serious mode of discourse is unable to handle easily.

According to Mulkay, the social play activity of humor was co-opted over the

course of human evolution as a way for people to deal with this multiplicity and

inherent contradiction in their communications with one another. Making use of

Arthur Koestler's (1964) concept of bisociation (discussed in Chapters 1, 3, and 4),

Mulkay views humor as a way of incorporating, embracing, and even celebrating the

contradictions, incongruities, and ambiguities inherent in interpersonal relationships.

By simultaneously expressing opposite meanings, the humorous mode provides a

shared conceptual framework that embraces contradictions, rather than avoiding

them, and thereby enables people to negotiate otherwise difficult interpersonal

transactions.

For example, humorous joking and playful teasing can be a way for spouses or

other partners in a close relationship to communicate about a topic on which they

strongly disagree, instead of using the more serious mode and getting into endless

arguments that cannot resolve the issue and only lead to an escalation of anger and

bitterness, destabilizing the relationship. The humorous mode allows them to express

their strongly opposing views and acknowledge their conflict while, at the very same

time, communicating an opposite message about their continuing commitment to the

relationship. Thus, their humor is a way of playing with, and laughing about, the


incongruity inherent in the contradictory feelings and attitudes that they simultane-

ously hold toward one another. The positive feelings of mirth generated by this per-

ception of playful incongruity, and the laughter that they share, help to maintain

cohesion and positive feelings about the relationship, despite their differing views.

This is just one example of the many ways humor enables people, in many different

kinds of relationships, to communicate information about their beliefs, attitudes,

motives, feelings, and needs, which may not be as amenable to the serious mode

of discourse. Not only does this mode of communication convey information, but it

also induces mirth and laughter, further influencing the attitudes and feelings of

others.

As noted in Chapter 1,humor is a ubiquitous form of interaction that occurs in

all types of social contexts and takes many different forms. These include canned jokes,

amusing personal anecdotes, spontaneous witty comments, ironic observations, puns,

teasing, sarcasm, double entendres, and so on. Humor can also be evoked uninten-

tionally, such as when people laugh in response to someone misusing a word or behav-

ing in a clumsy manner (e.g., tripping, or spilling a drink). All of these forms ofhumor

can serve important interpersonal functions.

INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR

Anthropologists studying preliterate societies have noted the widespread existence

of "joking relationships" (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952) in which individuals who are related

in particular ways are expected to interact with humor, including joking, teasing,

banter, ridicule, and practical jokes (see Apte, 1985, for a review of this research). For

example, joking relationships occur in various cultures between individuals who are

potential sexual partners, between a man and his brothers-in-law, between grandpar-ents and grandchildren, or between members of different clans. Although the form

and pattern of joking relationships vary across cultures, they all seem to serve an

important function of regulating social interactions and maintaining social harmonyand stability. A number of ethnographic studies suggest that similar kinds of joking

relationships commonly exist in industrialized societies as well, as in the sorts ofjokingand teasing relationships that develop in work settings and in friendship groups to

establish group identity and exclude outsiders (Apte, 1985).

Humor serves a variety of functions, not only in these sorts of joking relation-

ships, but in all types of interpersonal interactions (Kane et al., 1977; Long and

Graesser, 1988; Martineau, 1972; Norrick, 1993). Most of these have to do with the

fact that it is inherently ambiguous and even contradictory, and can therefore be inter-

preted in several different ways at the same time. When someone says something in

a humorous way, he or she can always take it back by saying "I was only joking."

Indeed, since everyone recognizes the ambiguous nature ofhumor, it is often not even

necessary to make such a disclaimer. In this way, humor enables individuals to "save

face" for themselves and others. The concept of "face" comes from Erving Goffrnan's

(1967) analyses of social interactions. Goffman defined face as "an image of self delin-

eated in terms of approved social attributes" (p. 5). He noted that people are strongly


motivated to avoid communications that are potentially face-threatening, puttingthemselves or others in an awkward or embarrassing situation. Because of its ambi-

guity and potential for retraction, humor, like politeness, can be a useful tactic for

protecting the face of oneself and others, thus playing an important role in facilitat-

ing social interaction (Keltner et al., 1998; Zajdman, 1995).

It is important to note that when we speak of humor being "used" for particular

purposes, this does not mean that individuals are always consciously aware of these

functions or are using it in a volitional, strategic manner. Since it is usually sponta-

neous and unplanned, individuals typically perceive their experiences of humor to be

nothing more than playful fun. Nonetheless, in many instances, humor may be serving

various purposes of which the individuals involved are not fully aware. Indeed, the

ability to deny any serious intentions, even to oneself, is part of what makes humorso effective in many types of social interaction.

These uses of humor in communication can have any number of different

purposes. In a ground-breaking early paper on this topic, social psychologists Thomas

Kane, Jerry Suls, and James Tedeschi (1977) observed that humor "can help the

source to claim or disclaim responsibility for his actions, can reveal courage or relieve

embarrassment, may invoke normative commitments or release the individual from

commitments" (p. 13). In the following sections, I will discuss several of the inter-

personal functions of humor that have been identified. These are not mutually exclu-

sive, since any given instance of humor may serve more than one function at the same

time.

Self-Disclosure, Social Probing, and Norm Violation

Kane and colleagues (1977) noted that we are continually exploring our social

environments in order to determine the values, attitudes, knowledge, emotional states,

motives, and intentions of others. This sort of information is necessary for achieving

our goals in interactions with others, whether these are to increase intimacy, obtain

desired favors and rewards, or exert influence over others. Because of the potential

"face threat" involved, the unspoken rules of social propriety often make it difficult

or uncomfortable to ask direct questions about these sorts of issues. There is a risk

that our motives will be misconstrued, that we will be resented for our intrusiveness,

or that we or others will be embarrassed in some way. Humor can often be a more

acceptable and indirect way of gaining such information. By making a humorous

remark about certain attitudes, feelings, or opinions, we can reveal something about

ourselves in a way that allows us to deny it if it is not well received. Moreover, by

observing whether or not others respond with laughter or reciprocate with similar

humorous comments, we can ascertain whether they share similar views.

The communication of attitudes and motives relating to sex is often particularly

fraught with risks of misunderstanding and rejection, and humor is often used to deal

with these problems. This is likely why there are so many words with alternate sexual

meanings, allowing people to use humorous double entendre and innuendo to discuss

sexual matters in a safe way (Long and Graesser, 1988). In an observational study of

conversations among customers and staff in an all-night diner in upstate New York,


sociologist Alf Walle (1976) described the way humor was used by men and womento express interest in a possible sexual liaison. If they were to use serious modes of

communication in this context, participants would run the risk of causing offense to

the other person and being personally humiliated by rejection. However, by telling

sexual jokes and making humorous comments containing sexual innuendo, they were

able to probe the other person's level of interest in a way that enabled them to save

face if their interest was not reciprocated.

This role of humor as self-disclosure and social probing in sexual communication

was also illustrated in an early experiment by social psychologists Jay Davis and

Amerigo Farina (1970). Male college students were asked by either an attractive or

an unattractive female experimenter to rate the funniness of either aggressive or sexual

cartoons. The ratings were either given orally to the experimenter or on paper-and-

pencil scales. The results indicated that the highest funniness ratings were given bythe male participants when they were rating sexual cartoons orally to the attractive

female. The researchers suggested that these responses to humor provided a socially

acceptable method for the participants to let the experimenter know that they were

sexually interested in her.

Besides sexual topics, humor can be used to self-disclose and probe beliefs and

attitudes regarding a wide variety of issues, such as political and religious views and

attitudes toward people of different ethnicities, nationalities, occupations, or gender.

By making a racist or sexist comment in a humorous manner, an individual can probethe degree to which such attitudes are tolerated or shared by others. Humor can also

be used to probe people's emotional reactions to situations. For example, during times

of stress or danger (e.g., in a high-pressure work situation or prior to a battle during

wartime) where showing distress or fear might be construed as weakness, gallowshumor may be used to probe the degree to which others are experiencing negativeemotions (Kane et al., 1977). Thus, humor can be a useful tool for social compari-

son, a process whereby we seek information about others in order to evaluate our own

feelings and performance (Morse and Gergen, 1970).

Humor can also be used to push the boundaries of social propriety, attack "sacred

cows," and rebel against social norms. For example, by using obscenities or other typesof shocking language in a humorous manner, one is able to violate social norms in a

way that reduces the likelihood that others will take offense, since everyone knows

that humor is not to be taken seriously. Thus, one is more likely to get away with

breaking various taboos, expressing prejudiced attitudes, or engaging in boorish

behavior if these are done in a humorous rather than a serious manner. When carried

into the public domain, iconoclastic forms of humor such as satire and comedy can

be used to challenge widely held assumptions, expose social ills, and bring about social

change (Ziv, 1984).

Decommitment

People often use humor to save face when they experience some sort of failure,

when they are about to be unmasked in some way, or when they have been caught in


a lie or are found to have engaged in inappropriate behavior (Kane et al., 1977). Byusing humor to indicate that the proposed or past action was intended as a joke and

was therefore not meant to be taken seriously, one can save face by "decommitting"oneself from the action. For example, if Person A threatens Person B in some wayand this provokes a counter-threat from Person B, Person A can back down by turningthe original threat into a joke. Alternatively, if Person B does not comply with the

original threat and it comes time for Person A to back up the threat ("put up or shut

up"), he or she can use humor instead of carrying out the threat, thus avoiding an

escalation of conflict in the relationship while still maintaining his or her reputation

for credibility. By laughing in response to the humor, Person B in turn indicates a

tacit agreement to treat the original threat as nonserious. Similarly, two friends whohave allowed a disagreement to escalate into an argument can, by interjecting a

humorous remark, relieve the tension and avoid the loss of face that would occur if

either one was forced to back down (Long and Graesser, 1988).

Over the course of a year in a small community in Newfoundland, Craig Palmer

(1993) conducted an observational study of males playing floor hockey, a rough sport

involving quite a lot of verbal and physical aggression. He found that, while engag-

ing in overtly aggressive actions, middle-aged players (who were more concerned with

establishing and maintaining friendships with each other) were more likely to display

humor (smiling, laughter, and humorous comments) as compared to adolescents and

young adults, who were more concerned with competition. In addition, humor was

more likely to accompany aggressive behaviors between players with marked differ-

ences in skill level, as compared to those of equal skill. This is presumably because

confrontations between individuals with discrepancies in skill present more potential

for one person being hurt or embarrassed. Thus, the use of humor with what would

otherwise be interpreted as aggressive or provocative actions appeared to be a form

of decommitment, a way for participants to communicate that the action was not

to be taken seriously, and to reassure each other of the friendly nature of their

relationship.

Social Norms and Control

Besides being used to test and even violate social norms, Long and Graesser

(1988) pointed out that humor can be used to enforce social norms and indirectly

exert control over others' behavior. By using irony, teasing, sarcasm, or satire to make

fun of certain attitudes, behaviors, or personality traits, members of a group can com-

municate implicit expectations and rules concerning the kinds of behavior that are

considered acceptable within the group. These types of humor can take the form of

ridiculing members of an out-group, or they can be directed at deviant behaviors of

individuals within an in-group (Martineau, 1972). Either way, this humor can have a

coercive function, intimidating group members into conforming to the implied norms

out of fear of embarrassment.

Similarly, humor can also be used as an "unmasking tactic" (Kane et al., 1977).

By poking fun at another person, one is communicating a refusal to accept the


identity projected by that person, exposing or belittling his or her motives. Since the

message is communicated in a humorous way, and is therefore subject to multiple

interpretations simultaneously, it is difficult for the target to retaliate or to hold the

source accountable for embarrassing him or her. Thus, a humorous communication

reduces the risk of hostility and rancor that might be generated using a more serious

mode of communication in confrontation. I will discuss teasing in greater detail later

in the chapter.

Dews, Kaplan, and Winner (1995) conducted several experiments to investigate

the effects of using irony, as compared to direct statements, to deliver both criticisms

and compliments. An example of an ironic criticism is saying "Great game" to a personwho has played poorly, whereas an ironic compliment would be "You sure sucked in

that game" after someone has played particularly well. Not surprisingly, the studies

showed that ironic statements are perceived as more humorous than direct statements.

More importantly, irony also seemed to mute the message conveyed by literal

language: ironic criticism was perceived as less aggressive and insulting than direct

criticism, whereas ironic compliments were perceived as less positive than direct

compliments. Thus, irony can have a social control function, enabling people to

express both criticism and praise indirectly and ambiguously, avoiding loss of face for

speakers and listeners in the process.

Status and Hierarchy Maintenance

The role ofhumor in controlling behavior and enforcing social norms also impliesthat it can be used by individuals to reinforce their own status in a group hierarchy.

For example, you are more likely to crack jokes and amuse others in a group in which

you are the leader or have a position of dominance than in a group in which you have

lower status and less power than others. In a frequently cited early study, sociologist

Rose Laub Coser (1960) observed the use of humor during staff meetings in a psy-chiatric hospital. She found that humor in this context served to reinforce the hier-

archical structure of the relationships among staff members. Higher-status senior staff

(psychiatrists) were much more likely to use humor than were junior staff (psychiatric

residents or nurses), and they frequently directed their humor at junior staff in a waythat conveyed a critical or corrective message. In turn, the junior staff membersrefrained from directing humor at senior staff, but instead tended to use it either in

a self-deprecating manner or as a way of making fun of outsiders. Coser concluded

that humor helps to "overcome the contradictions and ambiguities inherent in the

complex social structure, and thereby to contribute to its maintenance" (p. 95). These

findings were replicated more recently in another study of humor among staff

members in a psychiatric unit (Sayre, 2001).

Dawn Robinson and Lynn Smith-Lovin (2001) used a statistical technique called

event history regression to analyze the use of humor during conversations in 29 six-

person task groups that were instructed to work together on a problem. The data sup-

ported a model of humor as a status-related activity. Individuals who more frequently

interrupted others in conversation (a behavior that indicates higher status) were also


more likely to engage in humor and make others laugh, even after controlling for the

frequency of overall participation in group discussion. Conversely, those who were

more frequently interrupted by others (reflecting their lower status) were less likely

to produce humor. There was also evidence that the use of humor early on in the

group discussion was a means for participants to establish status in the group hierar-

chy. In mixed-sex groups, males (who tended to be more dominant in a variety of

ways) were more likely to express humor than were females, and were more likely to

elicit laughter from others. The status differences in traditional male and female

gender roles may explain the findings of many studies (which I will discuss later in

the chapter) showing that men tend to produce humor more than women, whereas

women tend to laugh more in response to men's humor.

The use ofhumor to maintain a position of dominance is also evident in an ethno-

graphic study by James Spradley and Brenda Mann (1975) of interactions between

bartenders and waitresses in an American bar. Much of the humor that occurred in

these interactions took the form of ridicule, sexual insults, and lewd comments, and

was directed by the male bartenders toward the female waitresses. The authors dis-

cussed this humor in terms of joking relationships, seeing it as a way of relieving ten-

sions resulting from structurally created conflict in the relationships. However,

Mulkay (1988) pointed out that, rather than relieving tension for the women, the

humor tended to increase their frustration, and was primarily a strategy adopted

by the men to sustain their domination over the women. The women were not

permitted to take offense at the bartenders' ribald and denigrating remarks, whereas

the men could object when a "girl" went "too far" with her humorous comments.

These types of humor, which today would likely be viewed as workplace harassment,

have long been used to reinforce the subordinate position of women and membersof disadvantaged minority groups. Because the denigration occurs in a humorous

rather than a serious mode, it is difficult for the targets to complain, since the

sources can claim that they were "only joking." Indeed, the sources may even con-

vince themselves that it is "all in fun," and that the targets really have no reason to

take offense.

Ingratiation

Whereas humor may be used by higher-status individuals to maintain dominance

over others, it can also be used by lower-status persons as an ingratiation tactic to gain

attention, approval, and favors from others (Kane et al., 1977). Ingratiation refers to

behaviors such as other-enhancement, opinion conformity, self-deprecation, and

feigned interpersonal similarity, which are used to garner favors from a higher-status

person. When done in a serious communication mode, ingratiation runs the risk of

having one's insincerity unmasked, especially when there is considerable advantage to

be gained and when the target's status is very high. However, if ingratiation is done

in a humorous way, such as using a "backhanded compliment," there is less likelihood

that the source will be exposed as insincere (Long and Graesser, 1988, p. 54). For

example, to avoid sounding ingratiating, one might say to a basketball star, "You would


make a great basketball player if you could only learn to dribble the ball," rather than

"You are an amazing player."

Laughing at another person's jokes can also be a form of ingratiation. The higherthe status of a public speaker, the more likely are his or her jokes and funny anecdotes

to evoke laughter in the audience (Kane et al., 1977). In addition, ingratiation mayinvolve efforts to amuse others at one's own expense, engaging in silly or inappropri-

ate behavior to get a laugh from others, making excessively self-disparaging witty com-

ments, or laughing along with others when one is the target of their teasing or ridicule.

As we will see in Chapter 9, individuals who frequently engage in this sort of "self-

defeating humor", although they may be very funny and witty, tend to have low self-

esteem and high neuroticism and have difficulties maintaining satisfactory personal

relationships (R. A. Martin et al., 2003).

Group Identity and Cohesion

Although humor can be used to reinforce status differences between people, it

can also be a way of enhancing cohesion and a sense of group identity. Gary Alan Fine

(1977) used the term idioculture to describe the system of knowledge, beliefs, and

customs by which a small group of people defines itself and enables its members to

share a sense of belonging and cohesion. He suggested that humor, in the form of

friendly teasing, funny nicknames, shared "in-jokes," and slang terms, can contribute

to the idioculture of a group, providing a way for members to construct a shared reality

and sense of meaning. This function of humor also occurs in close dyads, such as

married couples, for whom private humor can create a shared identity and thus

strengthen their feelings of cohesion.

In task-oriented groups such as those found in work settings, interactions amongmembers have two important functions: (1) to accomplish group goals and (2) to main-

tain smooth relations (Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2001). Humor may help groupmembers to maintain smooth relations by serving as a stress reliever when the pres-

sures of task accomplishment begin to build. In a field study ofhumor among employ-ees in a small, family-owned business, Karen Vinton (1989) observed that humortended to create bonds among the employees and thereby facilitated the accomplish-ment of work tasks.

Jenepher Terrion and Blake Ashforth (2002) examined the role of "putdownhumor" in an observational study of a six-week executive development course for

senior police officers at the Canadian Police College in Ottawa. They concluded that,

rather than having a disruptive effect, putdown humor "played a prominent role in

melding this temporary group into a more or less cohesive unit" (p. 80). Theyobserved a progression in the targets of humor over the six weeks, from putdowns of

oneself to putdowns of shared identities, external groups, and, finally, other groupmembers. The use of putdown humor appeared to be influenced by a set of implicit

social rules regarding the appropriate targets, methods, and responses, which served

to maintain self-esteem and a positive group climate.


For example, putdowns of group members targeted relatively inconsequential

characteristics, and were only directed toward those individuals who did not take

offense but demonstrated an ability to laugh along in a good-natured way. Interest-

ingly, when group members were later interviewed about particular humorous

exchanges that had taken place within the group, they often had differing interpreta-

tions about the meaning of the event, but assumed that their own interpretations were

shared by everyone else. Thus, the multiplicity and ambiguity of meaning in humorseemed to enable group members to interact as if they shared common perceptions,

thereby fostering a sense of community despite their actual differences in perspective.

The authors of this study observed that humor seemed to serve the function of a col-

lective social ritual that was governed by implicit norms and enhanced the sense of

group solidarity.

Discourse Management

During the course of a conversation, participants need to attend not only to the

content of what is being said, but they also need to monitor and manage the flow of

the conversation (Ervin-Tripp, 1993). Conversations are mutual activities that require

the cooperation of all participants to make the discussion intelligible and satisfactory.

This involves such discourse activities as turn-taking, exchanging control, setting the

tone or style of the conversation, introducing topics, shifting topics, checking for

meaning, eye gaze, repetition, paraphrasing, and terminating the conversation.

Humor may be used for many of these purposes.In research using the method of conversational analysis, Neal Norrick (1993)

studied these functions in some detail, observing the way humor can be used to shift

the conversation away from a threatening topic, to change the tone of the conversa-

tion from one that is serious to one that is more lighthearted, and so on. As one

example, making a pun based on multiple meanings of a word that has been used in

a conversation can be a way for one person to humorously call attention to the ambi-

guity in something another person has said. Humor can also be used to initiate con-

versations in situations in which there is little shared knowledge between the

participants (e.g., strangers). For example, a witty comment about the weather might

generate further conversation, whereas a more serious comment that simply states the

obvious might seem trite (Long and Graesser, 1988).

Discourse management functions of humor were studied by social psychologist

John La Gaipa (1977) at the University of Windsor in Canada, who videotaped 22

small groups of male friends engaging in spontaneous conversations in a college pub.

Sequential analyses revealed that when one group member made a humorous

comment, this typically resulted in a significant increase in the conversational tempo,or rate of participation of all the group members, immediately afterwards. The type

and target of the humor affected the tempo in various ways. For example, when the

humor involved friendly putdowns, it led to a greater increase in tempo if it was

directed at a group member (i.e., friendly teasing of someone within the group) than


if it was in reference to someone outside the group. However, this pattern was reversed

when the humor was more hostile or aggressive. When directed at a person within

the group, this type of sarcastic humor led to a reduction in the rate of conversation,

whereas nasty humorous remarks about someone outside the group led to an increased

tempo. These different types of humor also produced different amounts of laughter,

but the effects of humor on the flow of conversation remained even after controlling

for the amount of laughter generated.

Depending on whether or not participants share the same goals in a conversa-

tion, the use of humor in discourse management can be disruptive to conversation as

well as facilitative. For example, individuals who frequently make puns in response to

ambiguous words of others can be quite disruptive to the flow of the conversation,

diverting the focus away from the current topic and toward their own cleverness. Sim-

ilarly, joke-telling can be a way of taking control of a conversation for a relatively

extended period of time, putting on a performance to which listeners are expected to

respond with approving laughter (Norrick, 2003). If other participants in the con-

versation desire a more serious mode of discussion or a more equitable give-and-take,

these uses of humor may be viewed as intrusive and even aggressive.

Social Play

Besides these "serious" functions of humor in social interactions, humor can also

be enjoyed purely for its own sake as a pleasurable form of social play. This type of

humor most frequently occurs in groups of friends or close acquaintances of equalstatus in informal settings. As previously noted, Michael Apter (1982) viewed humoras a playful paratelic activity that is enjoyed for its own sake, as opposed to the serious,

goal-oriented, arousal-avoidant telic mode of functioning in which we find ourselves

during much of our daily lives.

In engaging in humor as social play, participants typically abandon, at least tem-

porarily, any serious conversational goals. Playing off one another, they amuse them-

selves with the multiple meanings of words and ideas, relating funny anecdotes about

incongruous events and experiences, and often using exaggeration, gestures, and facial

expressions to maximize the humorous effect. Participants often experience high levels

of mirth, and laughter can be loud and unconstrained during these times. While such

humor is enjoyed for its own sake, it nonetheless often serves additional interpersonalfunctions of enhancing group cohesiveness, laughing at outsiders, and strengtheningsocial bonds.

TEASING

Teasing is a particular form of humor that serves many of the interpersonal func-

tions just discussed. Like other types ofhumor, teasing is paradoxical, combining both

prosocial and aggressive functions. As Keltner and his colleagues (1998) noted,

"teasing criticizes yet compliments, attacks yet makes people closer, humiliates yet

TEASING

expresses affection" (p. 1231). According to Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991),

teasing comprises three components: aggression, humor, and ambiguity. In recent

years, a considerable amount of research attention has been devoted to teasing bysocial psychologists as well as sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists (for reviews,

see Keltner et al., 2001; Kowalski et al., 2001).

Social psychologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues (2001) proposed a "face

threat" analysis of teasing, conceptualizing it in terms of Goffman's (1967) ideas about

the importance of saving face in social interactions, particularly those interactions that

involve confrontation or communication of information that is potentially embar-

rassing to the speaker or listener. They defined teasing as "an intentional provocation

accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something rel-

evant to the target" (p. 234). In this definition, "provocation" refers to the fact that

teasing is a verbal or nonverbal act that is intended to have some effect and to elicit

a reaction from the target. Off-record markers are the verbal and nonverbal cues (such

as smiling, exaggeration, or certain vocal inflections) that accompany a tease and indi-

cate that it is to be taken in jest, making it a humorous as well as an ambiguous com-

munication that is delivered indirectly rather than directly (P. Brown and Levinson,

1987). The humorous and ambiguous nature of teasing enables the source to say

things that would be face-threatening and potentially unacceptable if communicated

in a serious mode, since the source can always say "I was just joking" if the commu-nication is not well received by the target.

Teasing can be used for a number of different purposes, ranging from prosocial

and friendly to hostile and malicious. The aggressiveness of the tease depends on the

degree of identity confrontation and the amount of ambiguity and humor that are

present (Kowalski et al., 2001). In playful, friendly teasing, close friends might say

things to one another that, if taken literally, would appear to be rather demeaning or

critical. The playful manner of the tease, however, communicates that the message is

not intended to be taken literally and, indeed, the opposite meaning is intended: the

source actually means to compliment the target in an ironic way. This playful aggres-

sion is similar to play fighting among children and young animals. Rather than being

aggressive, the unspoken subtext in such friendly teasing is an affirmation of the

strength of the relationship between the two individuals, calling attention to the fact

that they are close enough that they can say negative things and not take offense. The

laughter of both the source and the target signals that the tease is not taken seriously

by either, and this can help to increase further the feelings of closeness (Terrion and

Ashforth, 2002).

This sort of friendly teasing is also seen in "roasts," in which friends and cowork-

ers take turns humorously belittling a guest of honor, as well as in humorous greet-

ing cards that indirectly convey feelings of affection and sentimentality in the guise

of an overtly insulting message (Oring, 1994). Since teasing is seen as inappropriate

between people who do not know each other well, this sort of friendly teasing can

also be a way for individuals to signal a desire to move an acquaintanceship to a more

intimate level of friendship. Although these forms of teasing are essentially nonag-

gressive, however, there is always a potential for them to backfire if the recipient


misperceives the humorous intention or for some reason takes the message seriously.

Also, even the most friendly teasing tends to elicit less positive feelings in the target

than in the source of the teasing (Keltner et al., 1998).

Practical jokes are another form of humor closely related to this sort of friendly

teasing. Whereas teasing involves saying things that would normally be viewed as

somewhat insulting, practical jokes involve playing tricks on another person that

would normally be viewed as rather unkind. Like teasing, practical jokes can be a wayof indirectly demonstrating (or testing) the strength of a relationship, showing that

partners feel good enough about each other that they can put up with these playful

inconveniences. If the target takes offense, the source can say "it was all in fun," and

back away gracefully. On the other hand, if the target responds with laughter, this

affirmation of goodwill and tolerance generates feelings of greater closeness between

them. Since the source of a practical joke tends to enjoy it more and finds it funnier

than the target does, the target typically feels a need to respond in kind, in order to

"even the score." Consequently, practical joking can become a kind of tit-for-tat game,in which each person tries to think up ever more outrageous tricks to play on the

other. As long as the participants continue to enjoy it, this game adds pleasure to

the friendship. However, there is always a risk that practical joking might escalate

to the point where it is no longer enjoyable to one of the partners, potentially

destabilizing the relationship.

A somewhat more aggressive form of teasing, which often takes place between

close friends, romantic partners, or parents and children, involves its use as a mild

form of censure, communicating disapproval of some aspect of the target's habits,

behaviors, or preferences (Keltner et al., 1998). For example, if a person perceives a

friend to be overly demanding or rigid, he or she might use teasing as a way of drawingattention to the excessiveness of this behavior. This use of humor allows both the

source and the target to save face, diminishing the risk of defensiveness on the partof the target and increasing the likelihood of compliance. Thus, this form of teasinginvolves the use ofhumor as a form of social influence. Studies have shown that recip-

ients of this sort of teasing usually respond in a serious way to the underlying message,

explaining or justifying the targeted behavior, rather than laughing along with the

source (Keltner et al., 1998).

In even more aggressive forms of teasing, the confrontation becomes more direct,

and the humor and ambiguity of the message are reduced. In its most aggressive forms,

teasing can take the form of bullying (Whitney and Smith, 1993) and even violent

behavior (Arriaga, 2002). Even at these more aggressive levels, though, the humor-

ous nature of teasing allows the source to disclaim the aggressive intent, claiming that

the communication was intended as a joke, and thereby making it difficult for the

target to take offense. These aggressive forms of teasing can therefore be very coer-

cive and manipulative.Keltner and his associates at the University of California at Berkeley conducted

two experiments to investigate hypotheses derived from their face-threat analysis of

teasing (Keltner et al., 1998). In one study, they asked high- and low-status membersof a college fraternity to generate teasing comments about one another and rate their

feelings afterwards. As predicted, low-status members teased in more prosocial ways,while high-status members were more aggressive. Overall, most teasing concerned

negative rather than positive characteristics, consistent with the idea that teasing is

generally used to point out flaws and norm violations in the target. However, when

positive characteristics did appear as the topic of teasing, this was more likely to occur

when low-status sources teased high-status targets, rather than the other way around.

Not surprisingly, individuals with higher scores on a measure of the personality trait

of agreeableness tended to use less aggressive forms of teasing. The aggressive nature

of teasing was also seen in the fact that targets reported and displayed more negativeemotions than did the sources. Furthermore, low-status members showed more

embarrassment, pain, and fear in their facial expressions, whereas high-status

members showed more hostility, both when teasing and when being teased.

In the second study, a similar methodology was used with heterosexual dating

couples who were asked to generate teases about each other. Individuals who were

less satisfied with their relationship teased their partners in more aggressive ways. As

in the previous study, teasing was more frequently about negative than positive char-

acteristics of the target, and targets of teasing displayed more negative emotions than

did sources. More prosocial teasing produced more positive emotional responses in

both targets and sources. Although men and women did not differ in the aggressive-

ness of their teasing, women experienced more negative and less positive feelings in

response to being teased by their male partners. Overall, these studies provided

support for the view of teasing as a way of expressing censure and dominance in a

face-saving way.How does aggressive teasing affect observers who are not themselves the target

of the teasing? Leslie Janes and James Olson (2000), social psychologists at the Uni-

versity of Western Ontario, conducted two experiments in which they examined the

inhibiting effects of observing another person being ridiculed in a humorous way (i.e.,

teased), which they referred to as "jeer pressure." In both experiments, they had uni-

versity students watch videotapes depicting a male actor either ridiculing another

person, or directing the same humorous disparaging remarks at himself, or using

nondisparaging humor. In both studies, those who had viewed the other-disparaging

videotape, as compared to those in the other two groups, subsequently exhibited

greater inhibition in their performance on several tasks. In particular, they showed

greater conformity with the views of others in a rating task and, on a ring-toss task,

they revealed greater fear of failure as demonstrated by less willingness to take risks.

In addition, they responded more quickly to rejection-related words on a lexical deci-

sion task, indicating activation of a rejection schema.

Janes and Olson interpreted their findings as demonstrating that seeing someone

else being ridiculed or aggressively teased makes people perceive themselves to be at

increased risk of rejection themselves, and consequently they avoid behaving in waysthat might make them stand out and become a potential target of teasing too. The

strength of these effects is quite remarkable, considering the fact that the subjects

were merely watching a videotape and therefore the likelihood of being targets of

teasing themselves was minimal. Overall, this study indicates that aggressive teasing


can have a detrimental effect not only on the targets of negative teasing but also on

those who observe another person being teased.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LAUGHTER

As noted in Chapter 1, laughter is an expressive behavior signaling the presenceof the emotion of mirth. The reason it is so loud and comprises unique sounds and

facial expressions is because it is a method of communication, designed to capture the

attention of others, to convey important emotional information, and to activate similar

emotions in others. Thus, laughter is inherently social. Research indicates that peopleare 30 times more likely to laugh when they are with others than when they are alone

(Provine and Fischer, 1989). Laughter originated long before the development of lan-

guage as a method of communication. Thus, it seems to be "a unique and ancient

mode of prelinguistic auditory communication that is now performed in parallel with

modern speech and language" (Provine, 1992, p. 1).

What is the interpersonal function of laughter? As noted in Chapter 1,it appears

to have evolved in humans from the rapid, breathy panting vocalization seen in chim-

panzees and other apes during rough-and-tumble social play, which is accompanied

by the relaxed open-mouth display or "play face" (Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997;

van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). A number of theorists have therefore suggested that

laughter is a communication signal designed to indicate to others that one is experi-

encing the playful emotional state of mirth. In this view, the meaning of laughter is

to convey the message "This is play" (e.g., van Hooff, 1972).

More recently, however, some researchers have proposed an affect-induction view,

arguing that laughter not only conveys cognitive information to others but it also

serves the function of inducing and accentuating positive emotions in others, in order

to influence their behavior and promote a more favorable attitude toward the one whois laughing (e.g., Bachorowski and Owren, 2003; Owren and Bachorowski, 2003;

Russell et al., 2003). These authors have suggested that the peculiar sounds of laugh-ter have a direct effect on the listener, inducing positive emotional arousal that mirrors

the emotional state of the laugher, perhaps by activating certain brain circuits in the

listener (Provine, 1996). Gervais and Wilson (2005) suggested that these brain cir-

cuits may be akin to the mirror neurons, or mirror-matching systems, that have been

the subject of a good deal of recent research in social neuroscience and are thoughtto form an important neural basis for human social relationships by enablingindividuals to experience and appreciate the actions and emotions of others

(Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). In Chapter 6, I will discuss some recent brain-

imaging studies that investigated the regions of the brain that are activated when wehear others laughing.

The view of laughter as a means of inducing mirth in others helps to explain whyit is so contagious. When we hear other people laughing heartily, it is difficult not to

begin laughing also. Presumably, it is the emotion of mirth that is "caught" in such

instances of laughter contagion. Hearing others laugh induces this positive emotion,

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LAUGHTER

which in turn causes us to laugh. Numerous experiments have shown that participants

who are exposed to humorous stimuli (e.g., jokes, cartoons, or comedy films) in the

presence of a laughing person or while listening to recorded laughter, in comparisonto those in no-laughter control conditions, are more likely to laugh themselves and

tend to rate the stimuli as being more funny (G. E. Brown, D. Brown, and Ramos,

1981; Donoghue, McCarrey, and Clement, 1983; Fuller and Sheehy-Skeffington,

1974; G. N. Martin and Gray, 1996; Porterfield et al., 1988). These findings account

for the widespread use of recorded laughter sound tracks accompanying television

comedy programs, which presumably enhance audience enjoyment and perceptionsof funniness. Other experiments have shown that the larger the audience, the more

likely they will be to laugh at a comedy performance, as long as they are not overlycrowded into a small space (Prerost, 1977).

A study by Robert Provine (1992), using a "laughter box," showed that the sound

of laughter alone, without any other humorous stimuli being present, is enough to

trigger laughter in most listeners. However, repeated exposure to the same laughter

recording quickly becomes aversive and no longer elicits laughter after a few repeti-

tions. In a similar vein, Jo-Anne Bachorowski and her colleagues found that laughter

containing variable acoustic properties is rated as more enjoyable by listeners than

laughter that is more repetitious (Bachorowski, Smoski, and Owren, 2001).

Early research on social aspects of laughter consisting primarily of laboratorystudies examined the effects of listening to rather artificial recorded laughter on

people's enjoyment of jokes, cartoons, and comedy films. More recently, however,

investigators have gone out of the laboratory and begun to study spontaneous laugh-ter occurring in the context ofmore naturalistic social interactions. In a study reported

by Robert Provine (1993), at the University ofMaryland, small groups of people inter-

acting in public places were surreptitiously observed, and each time someone laughed,the dialogue immediately preceding the laughter was written down. In a sample of

1200 such episodes, laughter was found to occur almost exclusively at the end of com-

pleted sentences rather than in the middle, suggesting that "laughter punctuates

speech" (see Nwokah, Hsu, Davies, and Fogel, 1999, however, for evidence of laugh-ter co-occurring with speech in mother-infant interactions). Provine also found that

people were significantly more likely to laugh after something they themselves said

than after something said by another person, and that women tended to laugh more

frequently than men.

Interestingly, Provine noted that in these naturalistic conversations most of the

laughter did not occur in response to joke-telling or other obvious structured attemptsat humor. Instead, it frequently followed seemingly mundane statements and ques-

tions (e.g., "It was nice meeting you too," or "What is that supposed to mean?").

Provine therefore argued that much of our everyday laughter actually has little to do

with humor per se, but instead is a social signal of friendliness and positive emotion

generally. It is not clear from this research, however, whether the subjects were actu-

ally perceiving these utterances as being funny (i.e., containing some sort of non-

serious incongruities) and therefore experiencing genuine mirth, or whether their

laughter was simply a friendly social signal as Provine argued (Gervais and Wilson,


2005). Since Provine only recorded the last sentence spoken before each episode of

laughter, we do not have enough information to know whether the larger conversa-

tional context may have made these statements funny, just as we would not perceive

the humor if we simply heard a series of joke punch lines without the setups. This is

a question that merits further investigation.

In another study of laughter in social interaction, Julia Vettin and Dietmar Todt

(2004), at the Free University of Berlin, tape-recorded 48 hours of conversations

among dyads of friends and strangers in naturalistic settings. They found an averageof 5.8 bouts of laughter occurring in each 10-minute period of conversation, with a

range of to 15 bouts. A laughter bout was defined as the series of "ha-ha-ha" sounds

emitted during a single exhalation. These rates appear to be much higher than the

frequencies that have been reported in self-report daily diary studies of laughter

(Mannell and McMahon, 1982; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This suggests that,

when completing such records, people tend to underestimate how frequently they

laugh and may not even notice some of the times when they are laughing. Interest-

ingly, this study found that, on average, participants laughed just as frequently with

strangers as they did with close friends.

As in Provine's (1993) investigations, individuals in Vettin and Todt's study

laughed more frequently following their own utterances than following an utterance

of their conversational partner. Also similar to Provine's findings, speakers generallydid not laugh in the middle of a sentence. However, unlike Provine, this study found

that listeners often laughed while their conversational partners were still speaking.Acoustical analyses of the laughter revealed a great deal of variability, both within and

between individuals (cf. Bachorowski et al., 2001). In addition, it was found that some

of the acoustical parameters of laughter varied systematically according to the context

and whether the laughter was produced by the speaker or the listener. These findings

further highlight the conversational nature of laughter, indicating that it is a nonver-

bal method of communication.

To study listeners' affective responses to different types of laughter, Jo-AnneBachorowski and Michael Owren (2001), at Vanderbilt University, conducted five

experiments in which they asked male and female participants to complete a numberof ratings after listening to recordings of different types of laughs produced by menand women. These included voiced, harmonically rich songlike laughs, and unvoiced

gruntlike, snortlike, and cacklelike laughs. In each of the studies, the voiced songlike

laughs elicited more positive evaluations than did any of the unvoiced laughs. This

occurred regardless of whether listeners rated their own emotional responses, the

likely responses of others, or perceived attributes of the laughers (e.g., friendliness,

sexiness, or listener's interest in meeting the laugher). Based on these findings,

the authors suggested that the acoustic variability in laughter is important for its

affect-induction function, eliciting a range of different emotional responses in

listeners.

A subsequent study by Moria Smoski andJo-Anne Bachorowski (2003) also exam-

ined the role of laughter in social interaction. They proposed that "antiphonal" laugh-ter (i.e., laughter that occurs during or immediately after a social partner's laugh) is

part of an affect-induction process that promotes affiliative, cooperative behavior

HUMOR. SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

between social partners. They hypothesized that antiphonal laughter should therefore

increase in frequency as friendships develop between people. To test this hypothesis,

they audiotaped same-sex and mixed-sex friend and stranger dyads while they playedbrief games designed to facilitate laugh production. As predicted, significantly more

antiphonal laughter (controlling for overall laughter rates) occurred in friend dyadsthan in stranger dyads. In addition, in mixed-sex dyads, females were more likely to

laugh antiphonally than were males, suggesting that females may be particularly

attuned to positive affective expressions by males.

Taken together, these studies provide considerable support for the view that

laughter is a form of social communication that is used to express positive emotions

and also to elicit positive emotional responses in others. As such, it seems to have an

important social facilitation and bonding function, promoting and helping to syn-chronize and coordinate social interactions by coupling the emotions of groupmembers (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Provine, 1992).

HUMOR, SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

How do we gather information and form impressions of other people? Whatfactors cause us to be attracted to some people and to dislike others? How do these

processes of social perception and attraction influence our decisions in selecting a

mate or forming a close friendship with someone? These types of questions have longbeen of particular interest to social psychologists. In the following sections, I will

explore some of the ways humor may play an important role in all these processes.

Social Perception

When we meet other people for the first time, we tend to quickly form

impressions and make judgments about their personality characteristics such as their

friendliness, trustworthiness, motives, and so on (E. E. Jones, 1990). Indeed, the

ability to form relatively accurate impressions of others rapidly and efficiently mayhave been important for survival in our evolutionary history. One source of infor-

mation that contributes to our initial impressions of others is the way they express

humor. As we have seen, humor is a form of interpersonal communication, and a

good sense of humor is therefore an important social skill that we typically admire in

others.

Although a sense of humor is generally viewed as a positive characteristic in other

people, the way another person's humor influences our impressions may depend in

part on our previous expectations about that person. In an early study of the role of

humor in person perception, undergraduate participants were asked to evaluate a pro-

fessor after watching a videotaped lecture (Mettee, Hrelec, and Wilkens, 197 1). Before

the lecture, the participants were given a summary of the professor's personality char-

acteristics; half of the subjects were told that he was an aloof, humorless person, and

half were told that he was somewhat "clownish" and given to being indiscreet in his

use of humor. The participants all watched videotapes of the same professor giving


the same lecture, except that for some subjects he told a joke at one point in the

lecture, whereas for others he did not. Analyses of the participants' ratings indicated

that, in the joke condition, those who had been led to expect an aloof and humorless

lecturer found the joke funnier and rated the lecturer as more competent, as com-

pared to those who were told that he was "clownish" and given to silly humor.

However, regardless of whether they had been told he was aloof or clownish, subjects

rated the lecturer as more likable when he told a joke than when he did not.

Our perceptions of other people may also be influenced by the type of humor

they use, the responses of others to their humor, and the social context in which they

express it. Peter Derks and Jack Berkowitz (1989) randomly assigned almost 800 male

and female undergraduates to various conditions in which they read alternate versions

of a story in which a male (or female) tells a cute (or dirty) joke to a group of friends

(or strangers) at a party (or at work), and everyone (or no one) laughs. The partici-

pants were then asked to rate their impressions of the joke-teller on a number of

dimensions. The joke-teller who told a "dirty," as compared to a "cute" joke, was rated

as significantly less sincere, less friendly, less intelligent, more thoughtless, and more

obnoxious. Dirty jokes were viewed particularly negatively if they were told to

strangers rather than friends, and by males rather than by females. Thus, telling

"dirty" jokes does not appear to be a very good way of making a positive first impres-sion on others.

Regardless of which type of joke was told, if the audience laughed at it, the joke-

teller was perceived as more attractive, but also as less sincere, than if the audience

did not laugh. Males found joke-tellers to be particularly attractive if they made people

laugh at work, whereas females rated most attractive those who made people laugh at

a party. Overall, those who told jokes at work were rated as more friendly than were

those who told jokes at a party. This latter finding may be explained by attribution

theory (H. H. Kelley, 1972), which suggests that we attribute the causes of behavior

to internal personality traits when it occurs in situations where it is not normally

expected, and to external causes when it occurs in situations where the behavior is

more expected. Since people typically tell jokes at parties more frequently than at

work, telling a joke at work is more likely to elicit attributions that the behavior is

due to internal traits such as friendliness.

A later study by Derks and his colleagues replicated and extended these findings

(Derks, Kalland, and Etgen, 1995). One finding in the later study was that the failure

of an audience to laugh at a joke led to perceptions of the joke-teller as being more

aggressive and less affiliative as compared to situations where the audience laughed at

the joke. Overall, then, the effect of humor on impression formation depends on a

variety of factors, including the type of humor, the social context, and the degree to

which other people find the person amusing.

Interpersonal Attraction

In general, we tend to be attracted to people who display a sense of humor. In

the cost-benefit analyses underlying interpersonal attraction (K. S. Cook and Rice,

HUMOR, SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

2003), a sense of humor in another person increases the perceived benefits of a rela-

tionship (the pleasant feelings associated with laughter) and decreases the perceivedcosts (there is less likelihood that the person will become easily offended or burden

us with negative emotional reactions). An experiment by Barbara Fraley and Arthur

Aron (2004) examined the degree to which a shared humorous experience during a

first encounter between strangers leads to greater feelings of closeness. In this study,

same-sex stranger pairs participated together in a series of tasks that were designedeither to generate a great deal of humor or to be enjoyable but not humorous. After

completing these tasks, they were each asked to rate their perceptions of their partnerand their feelings on a number of scales, including how close they felt to the other

person.

The participants in the humorous task condition laughed much more frequentlyand rated the activity as being significantly more humorous than did those in the non-

humorous condition, indicating that the manipulation of humor was successful. At the

same time, the two conditions were rated as being equally enjoyable. As predicted,

the participants in the humorous condition reported feeling much closer and more

attracted to each other afterwards, as compared to those in the nonhumorous condi-

tion. Further analyses revealed that this effect was due to differences in the perceivedfunniness and not merely the enjoyableness of the conditions.

The authors also tested several hypotheses concerning possible mediators and

moderators of the observed effects of shared humor. They found that the effect of

humor on perceived closeness was mediated in part by perceptions of "self-expansion"

(feeling that one has gained a new perspective on things and a greater sense of

awareness as a result of the interaction), as well as by distraction from the initial

discomfort associated with interacting with a stranger, but not by perceptions of self-

disclosure or greater acceptance by the partner. Furthermore, the effect of humor on

closeness was stronger for participants with a greater sense of humor and for those

with a more anxious attachment style. In summary, sharing humor in an initial

encounter between strangers appears to enhance feelings of closeness and mutual

attraction by expanding each person's sense of self and by reducing their feelings of

discomfort and anxiety, particularly among people who generally have a goodsense of humor as well as those who usually tend to feel anxious about their close

relationships.

While we tend to be attracted to people with whom we have a humorous inter-

action in our first encounter, we may be particularly attracted to those who laugh at

our jokes, since this indicates that they share our sense of humor. In an experiment

by Arnie Cann and his colleagues, participants were instructed to tell a joke to a same-

sex stranger who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Cann, Calhoun, and

Banks, 1997). For half of the subjects, the stranger laughed at the joke, and for the

other half he or she did not. Half of the participants were also given information indi-

cating that the stranger held attitudes and beliefs about social issues that were verysimilar to their own, whereas the other half were led to believe that the stranger held

dissimilar views. The participants subsequently rated their perceptions of the stranger

and their feelings of attraction to him or her.


As predicted, the results indicated that both greater similarity in attitudes and the

stranger's laughter in response to the joke led to more positive perceptions and greater

attraction to the stranger. Interestingly, the effect of laughter on the part of the

stranger was even powerful enough to overcome the well-established negative effect

of attitude dissimilarity on attraction. A stranger with dissimilar social attitudes who

laughed in response to the participant's joke was perceived more positively than was

a stranger with similar attitudes who did not laugh. The authors suggested that laugh-ter from the stranger indicates that this person has a sense of humor, and, moreover,

that he or she shares the subject's style of humor, both of which contribute to posi-

tive attraction. These humor perceptions seem to be even more important than the

well-established effect on attraction of sharing similar attitudes and beliefs. Viewed in

another way, these findings suggest that laughing at the funny things another person

says is a way not only of expressing feelings of attraction but also of enhancing one's

own attractiveness to the other person (Grammer, 1990).

Humor as a Desirable Trait in Friendship and Mate Selection

As noted in Chapter 1, over the past century a sense ofhumor has become a highly

prized personality characteristic, but it is also rather vaguely defined in most people's

minds. In much the same way as physical attractiveness is highly valued and is per-ceived to be associated with many desirable traits (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, and

Longo, 1991), we tend to hold positive stereotypes about individuals whom we per-ceive to have a sense of humor. Studies have shown that people tend to assume that

individuals with a strong sense of humor are also characterized by a number of other

desirable traits, such as being friendly, extraverted, considerate, pleasant, interesting,

imaginative, intelligent, perceptive, and emotionally stable (Cann and Calhoun, 2001).

Due to this positive stereotype, we often use other people's sense of humor as a guidein choosing our friends and romantic partners. Sprecher and Regan (2002) surveyed700 men and women about their preferences for a number of attributes in either a

casual sex partner, dating partner, marriage partner, same-sex friend, or opposite-sexfriend. Across all these relationship types, a good sense of humor was one of the most

highly rated characteristics, along with warmth and openness. Similar findings have

been obtained in a number of other studies (Goodwin, 1990; Goodwin and Tang,

1991; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost, 1990).

Analyses of the kinds of characteristics sought in potential romantic partners in

personal ads placed in newspapers and singles magazines have found that women par-

ticularly look for a sense of humor in male partners, whereas men, although they still

place a high value on a sense of humor in a woman, rate physical attractiveness as

somewhat more important (Provine, 2000; J. E. Smith, Waldorf, and Trembath, 1990).

A similar pattern of sex differences has been found in some survey studies (e.g., Daniel,

O'Brien, McCabe, and Quinter, 1985). A meta-analysis of the research on mate selec-

tion preferences concluded that there is a significant but relatively small tendency for

women to place greater weight than men on the importance of a sense of humor in

a potential partner (Feingold, 1992).

HUMOR. SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 13

An experiment by Duane Lundy and his colleagues examined the effects of self-

deprecating humor and physical attractiveness on observers' desire for future inter-

action in various types of heterosexual relationships (Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham,1998). Male and female college students were shown a photograph and a transcript

of an interview with a person of the opposite sex (the target person). The participants

were randomly assigned to conditions in which the photograph depicted either an

attractive or unattractive person, and the transcript either did or did not contain a

self-deprecating humorous comment supposedly made by the target. The participants

were asked to rate the target in terms of mate qualities by indicating the degree to

which they would be interested in several types of relationships with him or her,

including dating, sexual intercourse, long-term relationship, marriage, and marriagewith children.

As in previous research, men rated the more physically attractive female target as

a more desirable partner for almost all types of relationships. Men's ratings of desir-

ability were not affected by the presence or absence of humor in the transcript. In

contrast, for women, physical attractiveness of the male target did not directly influ-

ence their ratings of desirability. Instead, for female participants, there was an inter-

action between the physical attractiveness of the target and whether or not he

expressed humor. In particular, humor increased the perceived desirability if the target

was physically attractive, but it had no effect if he was unattractive. This pattern held

for ratings of desirability for both short- and long-term relationships. These results

suggest that self-deprecating humor may increase romantic attraction of womentoward men, but only when other variables (such as physical attractiveness) are favor-

able. Further analyses of the rating data indicated that women viewed the humorous,

physically attractive male as being more caring than the nonhumorous, physically

attractive male.

Contrary to previous research evidence that humor is perceived as an indicator

of intelligence (Cann and Calhoun, 2001), both male and female participants tended

to view the humorous target as being slightly less intelligent than the nonhumorous

one. However, the results of this study may have been influenced by the self-

deprecating nature of the humor displayed by the target and not to humor in general.

In particular, the humor in this experiment may not have been sufficient or of the

right type to evoke perceptions that the target had a "sense of humor," along with all

the positive qualities that are associated with this stereotype. Additional research is

needed to determine whether these findings can be replicated using different degreesor types of humor. Some other research suggests that, for women, having a goodsense of humor (as well as being emotionally stable) can make up for being relatively

less physically attractive in determining the degree to which they are seen by males

as attractive romantic partners (Feingold, 1981). I will review some additional

research along these lines in my discussion of evolutionary theories of humor in

Chapter 6.

Overall, the research on humor, social perception, and attraction indicates that

we tend to have positive attitudes toward people who demonstrate a sense of humor.

People with a sense of humor are generally assumed also to have a number of other

16 5 THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

positive characteristics, and this trait is highly desirable in the selection of a friend or

romantic partner. As we saw earlier, research indicates that the sound of laughter in

others induces positive feelings in the listener (Bachorowski and Owren, 2001). The

positive emotion elicited by shared laughter with someone who has a sense of humor

may serve to reinforce mutual feelings of attraction, strengthening positive attitudes,

instilling a sense of trust and loyalty, and promoting the development of close rela-

tionships (Smoski and Bachorowski, 2003).

HUMOR AND PERSUASION

Is a humorous message more persuasive than a serious one? The widespread use

of humor in television and radio advertisements suggests that advertisers view humoras a useful tool in persuading people to buy their products. Also, politicians frequently

sprinkle humor in their campaign speeches, presumably because they believe this will

help in persuading people to vote for them. Surprisingly, however, there is little

research evidence that humorous messages are more persuasive, overall, than are non-

humorous ones. A review of the relevant research (Weinberger and Gulas, 1992)

found five studies on humor in advertising that indicated a positive effect on persua-

sion, eight studies that indicated only mixed or no effect, and one that even found

humorous advertisements to be less persuasive than serious ones.

In research on humor and persuasion outside of advertising (e.g., persuasive

speeches or essays), none of the studies demonstrated an overall superiority of humor-

ous over nonhumorous messages, seven studies found neutral or mixed results, and

one study found a negative effect ofhumor on persuasiveness (Weinberger and Gulas,

1992). Thus, simply making a message humorous does not necessarily make it more

persuasive. This conclusion is perhaps less surprising than it may initially seem: if

humorous messages were always more persuasive, advertisers and politicians would

likely have figured that out by now, and we would see nothing but humorous adver-

tisements on television and politicians constantly cracking jokes throughout their

campaign speeches!

The wide variation in research findings suggests that the role of humor in per-suasion is more complex, with certain types of humor contributing to persuasivenessin some circumstances but not in others. For example, one study found that humor-

ous advertisements were more effective than nonhumorous ones with viewers who

already had a positive attitude toward the product, whereas humor was less effective

with those who had pre-existing negative brand attitudes (Chattopadhyay and Basu,

1990). Another study found that the addition of humor to a low-intensity, soft-

sell advertising approach increased the level of persuasion, whereas the addition of

humor to a hard-sell approach actually decreased persuasiveness (Markiewicz, 1974).

Weinberger and Gulas (1992) suggested that the effectiveness of humor in advertis-

ing depends on the objectives one seeks to achieve, the target audience, the product

being advertised, and the type of humor used.

HUMOR AND PERSUASION 13

The complex role of humor in persuasion may be better understood if weconsider the factors that have been found to be relevant to persuasion in general.

Contemporary research suggests that the persuasiveness of a message depends not

only on the message itself but also on characteristics of the audience, such as atten-

tion, distraction, involvement, motivation, self-esteem, and intelligence. According to

the Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo

(1986), persuasion can be achieved by means of two potential routes: a central pro-

cessing route and a peripheral processing route. The central route, which involves

active elaboration of the message by the listener, occurs when the listener finds the

message personally relevant and has pre-existing ideas and beliefs about the issue. In

this route, listeners will become convinced of an argument if they find it logically

compelling. In contrast, the peripheral route involves less well-thought-out responsesbased on "heuristic" cues such as moods and emotions, familiar phrases, or the attrib-

utes of the message source (e.g., level of expertise, likeability, or perceived lack of

self-interested motives). This route occurs when the listener is less highly invested

or motivated, is not able to understand the message, or does not like to deal with

complex information, and it generally leads to less stable changes in attitudes and

behavior.

Research suggests that the effects of humor on persuasion may have more to do

with the peripheral than the central processing route. In particular, humor seems to

be more effective in influencing emotional variables, such as liking and positive mood,than cognitive ones, such as comprehension of the message (Calvin P. Duncan and

Nelson, 1985). There is little evidence that humor increases the perceived credibility

of the source of a message, or that it improves comprehension of the message (Wein-

berger and Gulas, 1992). However, there is considerable evidence that humor has

emotional effects on the audience, tending to put them into a more positive mood

(C. C. Moran, 1996). Studies also indicate that humor enhances the listener's liking

of the source and the product being advertised (Weinberger and Gulas, 1992). Humoralso has an attention-grabbing effect, causing people to attend to the humorous

aspects of the message (Madden and Weinberger, 1982), and distracting them from

weaknesses in the logical argument (J. A. Jones, 2005). Taken together, these findings

suggest that humor has more of an emotional than a cognitive effect, and that it mayplay a greater role in the peripheral processing route than in the central processingroute to persuasion.

Jim Lyttle (2001) suggested that humor may influence the peripheral processingroute in several ways. First, by creating a positive mood in the audience, it might make

them less likely to disagree with a persuasive message. Second, by increasing liking

for the source, humor might implicitly convey a sense of shared values and therebymake the source appear more credible. Third, by distracting the attention of the audi-

ence, humor might prevent them from constructing counter-arguments against the

message. Finally, self-disparaging or self-effacing humor might convey the impressionthat the source has less personal investment in the outcome and this might increase

audience perceptions of trustworthiness of the source.

8 5 THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

An experiment by Diane Mackie and Leila Worth (1989) examined the role of

humor-induced positive mood on the persuasiveness of a message. Participants were

either put in a good mood by having them watch a humorous videotape (a comedysegment from Saturday Night Live) or they were put in a neutral mood by having them

watch a documentary film about wine. They were then exposed to a persuasive

message about gun control (advocating a position contrary to their original views) that

contained either strong or weak arguments, and that was delivered by either an expert

or a nonexpert source. The participants' subsequent ratings of their attitudes toward

gun control revealed that those who had been exposed to the humorous videotapewere equally likely to change their attitudes following the weak and strong arguments,but were more strongly influenced by the expert source than by the nonexpert source.

This pattern of results indicates that they were engaging in peripheral rather than

central processing of the information, relying on heuristic cues instead of the strengthof the argument to make a decision. In contrast, those who had watched the nonhu-

morous videotape were more strongly influenced by the strong than the weak argu-

ments, whereas they were equally persuaded by the expert and nonexpert sources.

Thus, they were engaging in central processing, focusing on the strength of the argu-ments rather than heuristic cues such as the credibility of the source.

Similar findings were obtained in another experiment in which positive moodswere induced in participants by having them win a small prize in a lottery, indicating

that the pattern of the humor-related persuasion effects was due to the induction of

positive emotion rather than the more cognitive aspects of humor. Thus, humor mayinfluence the persuasiveness of a message by inducing positive moods in listeners,

causing them to attend to peripheral, heuristic cues rather than to the strength of the

argument via central processing (see also Wegener, Petty, and Smith, 1995, regard-

ing the complicated relationship between positive moods and information process-

ing). These findings may also explain the broad appeal of some politicians who

sprinkle their speeches with humor, inducing voters to respond to peripheral cues

instead of engaging in more critical thinking about their policies.

Because it involves the peripheral processing route, humor may be particularly

effective as a method of persuasion with people who are motivated to avoid thinkingtoo much about an issue. This hypothesis was tested in two studies that examined the

effects of a humorous persuasive message concerning potentially threatening topics,

specifically the use of sunscreen to prevent skin cancer and the use of condoms to

prevent sexually transmitted diseases (Conway and Dube, 2002). The authors hypoth-esized that a humorous message would be more effective than a nonhumorous messagefor high-masculinity individuals, but not for low-masculinity people. Masculinity (a

characteristic that can apply to both men and women) consists of an assertive, instru-

mental orientation characterized by being independent, forceful, and dominant. Pre-

vious research has shown that high-masculinity people are particularly averse to

feelings of distress, and they therefore avoid thinking about threatening topics by

engaging in distraction, denial, or a focus on the positive.

To test these hypotheses, male and female participants who were either high or

low in masculinity were presented with either a humorous or a nonhumorous message,

HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE

both of which contained an equal amount of information about the topic. The par-

ticipants were then asked to indicate how likely they would be to engage in the pre-

ventive behaviors in the future (sunscreen use in the first study and condom use in

the second). As predicted, high-masculinity participants (both male and female) were

more strongly persuaded by the humorous message than by the nonhumorous

message, whereas low-masculinity subjects were equally persuaded by both messages.The authors suggested that the humorous appeals were more effective for high-

masculinity subjects in promoting preventive behaviors because the humor matched

the avoidant manner in which these individuals typically respond to a threatening

topic, allowing them to engage in peripheral (heuristic) rather than central

(elaborative) processing of the persuasive message.The research discussed so far focused on the effectiveness of humor in persuasive

messages such as advertisements. An experiment by Karen O'Quin and Joel Aronoff

(1981) examined whether humor is effective in an interpersonal bargaining situation.

The participants in this study were instructed to act as buyers of a painting, negoti-

ating a sale price with another person who played the part of the seller (and who was

actually a confederate of the experimenter). At one point during the negotiation, the

confederate made either a nonhumorous or a humorous offer to the subject ("Well,

my final offer is $100, and I'll throw in my pet frog"). The results showed that the

participants who received the humorous offer during the course of negotiations agreedto pay a higher final price for the painting, on average, than did those who received

the nonhumorous offer. Thus, the use of humor by the seller appears to provide an

advantage in sales negotiations. Interestingly, further analyses indicated that this effect

was not simply due to the humor causing the participants to like the seller more.

Instead, the authors proposed an explanation based on the face-saving effects ofhumordiscussed earlier. In particular, they suggested that humor may convey the messagethat the seller does not take the situation very seriously, thereby allowing the buyerto save face when agreeing to pay a higher price. This hypothesis should be exam-

ined further in future research.

In summary, there does not appear to be a simple relationship between humorand persuasion. The role of humor in persuasion depends on the kind of processinginvolved (peripheral or central), and characteristics of the audience, the topic, and the

source of the message.

HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE

Many jokes make use of a stereotype about a particular group of people to enable

the listener to resolve an incongruity and "get" the joke. Consider the following old

English riddle (from Raskin, 1985, p. 189):

How do you make a Scotsman mute and deaf?

By asking him to contribute to a charity.

5 THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

To resolve the puzzle of why someone would suddenly become mute and deaf

when asked to contribute money to a charity, one needs to be aware of the English

stereotype of Scottish people as being excessively stingy. The presence of such stereo-

types in many jokes raises the question ofwhether jokes making fun ofwomen, peopleof disadvantaged ethnic or racial groups, homosexuals, and so on, reinforce negative

stereotypes and contribute to prejudice and discrimination. As noted in Chapter 3,

theorists holding to the salience hypothesis have argued that people do not need to

agree with such stereotypes in order to enjoy these types of disparaging jokes, and

that they are therefore not inherently aggressive or offensive (Attardo and Raskin,

1991; Goldstein et al., 1972).

We saw earlier in this chapter that humor is often used to communicate contra-

dictory and ambiguous messages. When people make disparaging statements about

others in a humorous way, they can leave open the question of whether they "really

mean it" or are "just joking," and whether or not the target of the humorous dispar-

agement has reason to take offense. This ambiguity in the meaning ofhumor is playedout in the "political correctness" debate, which has generated a great deal of contro-

versy in recent years. When historically disadvantaged groups, such as minorities and

women, began to decry the use of disparaging humor in the workplace and in public

discourse generally, others reacted against what they perceived to be an unwarranted

restriction of their right to free speech, suggesting that such humor was all in fun and

should not be taken so seriously (Saper, 1995).

Much like the general public, humor scholars have also been divided over this

issue, as demonstrated by an extended debate that was conducted via email among 19

humor researchers and was subsequently published in Humor: InternationalJournal of

Humor Research (Lewis, 1997). Some scholars, such as Paul Lewis, argued that degrad-

ing forms of sexist and racist humor can serve to legitimize and perpetuate negative

stereotypes and contribute to a culture of prejudice. Others, like Arthur Asa Berger,

countered that humor is inherently iconoclastic, is valuable for rebelling against

norms, rules, and restrictions of all kinds, and should not be restricted. Still others,

such as John Morreall, suggested that the offensiveness of a joke depends not so muchon its content but the manner and context in which it is told. Such differences of

opinion among humor scholars are also seen in two sociological studies analyzing

jokes making fun of "Jewish American princesses" (JAPs), which arrived at radically

different conclusions. Gary Spencer (1989) concluded that these jokes are essentially

anti-Semitic and contribute to prejudice and negative stereotypes of Jews, whereas

Christie Davies (1990b) argued that they are not based on anti-Semitism at all, but

actually affirm the positive qualities ofJewish culture.

We saw in Chapter 2 that Freud (1960 [1905]) viewed jokes as a socially accept-

able means of expressing aggressive and hostile impulses. In addition, Zillmann and

Cantor's (1976) dispositional theory of humor suggested that people enjoy jokes that

disparage a particular group of people when they have negative attitudes toward that

group and/or positive attitudes toward the source of the disparagement. A number of

studies have found evidence to support this theory (Cantor, 1976; La Fave, Haddad,and Marshall, 1974; Wicker, Barren, and Willis, 1980). More recently, a study by

HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE 141

Brigitte Bill and Peter Naus (1992) showed that people who perceive incidents involv-

ing sexist attitudes and behaviors to be more humorous also tend to view them as less

sexist and more socially acceptable. Several other studies have revealed that individ-

uals who rate sexist and female-disparaging humor as more ninny and enjoyable are

also more likely to endorse sexist attitudes and rape-related beliefs and have less

liberal, pro-feminist attitudes (Greenwood and Isbell, 2002; Henkin and Fish, 1986;

Moore, Griffiths, and Payne, 1987; Ryan and Kanjorski, 1998).

Caroline Thomas and Victoria Esses (2004), at the University of Western

Ontario, found that men with higher scores on a measure of hostile sexism, as com-

pared to those with lower scores, rated female-disparaging (but not male-disparaging)

jokes as funnier and less offensive, and were more likely to indicate that they would

repeat these sexist jokes to others. Further analyses revealed that these differences

were not merely due to stereotypical attitudes or prejudice toward women, but to

hostile attitudes. Thus, there is considerable evidence that disparagement humor, such

as that found in sexist and racist jokes, is enjoyed partly because it enables people to

express negative sentiments and attitudes toward the target groups in a manner that

is perceived to be socially acceptable.

In addition to research indicating that enjoyment of disparagement humorreveals negative attitudes toward the target of the humor, researchers have recently

begun to examine the question of whether exposure to these types of humor can actu-

ally have an influence on listeners' attitudes and stereotypes. James Olson and col-

leagues (1999), at the University of Western Ontario, conducted three experiments

testing whether exposure to disparaging humor would produce more extreme or

more accessible stereotypes and attitudes concerning the disparaged group. Partici-

pants in the experimental conditions were exposed to disparaging humor about

men (in two studies) or lawyers (in the third study), while those in the control groupswere exposed to nondisparaging humor, nonhumorous disparaging information, or

nothing at all. Dependent measures included ratings of the target group on stereo-

typic attributes, attitudes toward the target group, and latencies of stereotypic and

attitudinal judgments about the target group (to assess activation of prejudice

schemas).

Across the three experiments, a total of 83 analyses yielded only one significant

difference in the predicted direction. In sum, exposure to disparaging humor had no

demonstrable effects on stereotype or attitude extremity or accessibility. Thus, simply

hearing someone tell jokes that disparage a particular target group does not seem to

cause the listener to have more negative attitudes toward that group. A limitation of

these studies, however, is that the disparaged groups in these studies (men and lawyers)

are relatively advantaged in the culture; different results might have been found if the

jokes had targeted more disadvantaged groups. The authors had chosen these targets

rather than jokes disparaging women or racial minorities because of ethical concerns.

However, given their null results, it seems important for future research to replicate

these findings using disparagement humor targeting truly disadvantaged groups. If

the same results are found, this would provide more conclusive evidence that this type

of humor does not influence the attitudes of the listeners.

\"L 5 THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

Although these studies found little evidence that listening to disparagementhumor creates more negative stereotypes and attitudes in the audience, other studies

by the same research group have shown that telling such jokes can affect joke-tellers'

stereotypes about the target group. Hobden and Olson (1994) had participants tell

disparaging jokes that played upon the stereotype that lawyers are greedy. Partici-

pants' attitudes toward lawyers were then measured. The results indicated that freely

reciting the disparaging humor about lawyers caused participants to indicate more

negative attitudes toward lawyers afterwards.

In another experiment, Maio, Olson, and Bush (1997) manipulated whether par-

ticipants recited jokes that disparaged Newfoundlanders, who are a relatively disad-

vantaged group in Canada, or nondisparaging jokes. In a supposedly unrelated study,

the participants were then asked to complete a measure of their stereotypes and atti-

tudes toward Newfoundlanders. The results indicated that those who recited dis-

paraging humor subsequently reported more negative stereotypes (e.g., perceptionsof Newfoundlanders as having low intelligence) than did those who recited

nondisparaging humor. However, the participants' evaluative attitudes toward

Newfoundlanders (e.g., ratings of good/bad, likable/unlikable) were not affected bythe manipulation.

Taken together, the results of these experiments provide some evidence that

telling disparaging jokes (as opposed to merely listening to them) can reinforce, and

perhaps even exacerbate, negative stereotypes about the target group. It is not clear,

however, whether these results were due to the participants' attitudes or stereotypes

becoming more negative as a result of reciting the jokes, or whether the jokes simplymade pre-existing beliefs more salient and therefore more accessible from memory.Another possible explanation is that the instructions to tell such jokes may have caused

participants to perceive that it was more acceptable to express their pre-existing neg-ative attitudes or stereotypes in this situation, whereas those in the control groups

suppressed any such attitudes in their responses. Future research is needed to explore

these alternative explanations of the results.

Even if exposure to disparaging humor does not make the listeners' attitudes

more negative (as suggested by the study of J. M. Olson et al., 1999), it may make

prejudiced attitudes seem more socially acceptable and thereby increase tolerance

for discrimination, particularly in people who already have negative attitudes toward

the target group. Thomas Ford (2000) conducted three experiments to investigate

these hypotheses. In the first experiment, participants were exposed either to sexist

jokes, neutral jokes, or nonhumorous sexist communications, and were then asked to

rate the acceptability of a sexist event (a vignette describing a situation in which a

young woman was treated in a patronizing manner at work by her male supervisor).

The results showed that, after exposure to sexist jokes, those participants (both male

and female) who had previously been identified in a questionnaire as being high in

hostile sexism showed greater tolerance for the sexist event, in comparison to those

exposed to neutral jokes or nonhumorous sexist communications. This effect was

not found among participants who were low in hostile sexism. Thus, exposure to

sexist attitudes communicated in a humorous (but not a serious) manner seems to

HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 14

cause people with pre-existing sexist attitudes to become more tolerant of sex

discrimination.

These findings were replicated in two further experiments, which also showed

that these effects of sexist humor on participants high in hostile sexism were nullified

when sexist jokes were interpreted in a serious, critical manner, as a result of either

explicit instructions or contextual cues such as information about the group mem-

bership of the joke-teller. These findings suggest that it is the activation of a

noncritical mindset (which is presumably a natural by-product of humorous commu-

nication) that makes it possible for sexist humor to increase tolerance of sex discrim-

ination. This would explain why nonhumorous, serious sexist communications did not

have the same effect. A follow-up experiment indicated that exposure to sexist humorcauses people who are high in hostile sexism to perceive the social norm as being more

tolerant of sexism, and they therefore feel less guilty about behaving in a sexist manner

themselves (T. E. Ford, Wentzel, and Lorion, 2001).

In summary, the existing research indicates that simply being exposed to sexist or

other forms of disparaging humor is not likely to change people's attitudes, stereo-

types, or prejudices (which tend to be quite stable schemas). However, telling these

kinds of jokes may create more negative stereotypes in the joke-teller, and hearingthem can cause negative stereotypes to become more salient in the listener. In addi-

tion, the sexist or racist attitudes underlying disparaging jokes may be interpreted less

critically than when these attitudes are expressed in a serious manner, and this can

create a social climate in which individuals who already have these sorts of attitudes

perceive sexual or racial discrimination to be more socially acceptable, causing them

to be more tolerant of such behavior (T. E. Ford and Ferguson, 2004). This does not

mean that everyone who enjoys disparagement humor necessarily has sexist, racist, or

homophobic attitudes (Attardo and Raskin, 1991); however, the research indicates that

there is a strong tendency for the two to go together. Furthermore, although simply

telling such jokes is not likely to change other people's feelings about the targets of

the jokes, for those who do have such attitudes this kind ofhumor can implicitly com-

municate a level of social tolerance for prejudice that may help to perpetuate dis-

crimination and social inequities.

HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

We saw earlier that a sense of humor is viewed by most people as a very desir-

able characteristic in a friend or romantic partner. Most of us assume that a personwith a greater sense of humor will be someone with whom we can have a more

satisfying relationship compared to someone with less humor. The humorous personis seen as likely to be enjoyable to be with, cheering us up when we are under stress,

and refraining from becoming ill-humored and burdening us unduly when he or

she is having problems. Are these stereotypes accurate, however? Is there evidence

that humor actually contributes to better relationships and greater relationship

satisfaction?


A common view is that couples who share similar preferences in humor styles will

be more satisfied with their relationship. A study of undergraduate dating couples

found evidence in support of this hypothesis (Murstein and Brust, 1985), but a more

recent investigation of married couples did not (Priest and Thein, 2003). Although

spouses in the latter study generally tended to have similar styles of humor, greater

similarity was not related to greater marital satisfaction. Thus, the current evidence

is unclear as to whether a tendency to share similar humor preferences is correlated

with relationship satisfaction.

On the other hand, there is consistent evidence from studies of dating and married

couples that relationship satisfaction is correlated with positive appraisals of a partner's

sense ofhumor. That is, the more people are satisfied with their relationship, the more

they report that their partner has a good sense of humor, regardless of whether theylike the same types of jokes (Rust and Goldstein, 1989; Ziv and Gadish, 1989).

Research also indicates that people who are happily married often attribute their

marital satisfaction in part to the humor they share with their spouse (Ziv, 1988a).

When men and women who had been married for over 50 years were asked about the

reasons for the stability and longevity of their marriages, "laughing together fre-

quently" was close to the top of the list (Lauer, Lauer, and Kerr, 1990). However, it

is important to note that such correlational findings do not demonstrate that humorhas a causal effect on marital satisfaction. They may simply indicate that people whoare happy with their marriage (for whatever reason) tend to appreciate many thingsabout their spouses, including their sense of humor.

For several decades, psychologist John Gottman and his colleagues have been

studying marital satisfaction and factors predicting marital longevity over time

(Gottman, 1994). Their main research method involves videotaping married couples

engaging in discussions about problem areas in their marriage, such as differences of

opinion about dealing with finances or disciplining the children. Although these dis-

cussions take place in a research laboratory, they often become quite emotionallyintense. Indeed, the couples apparently behave in these laboratory discussions in muchthe same way they normally interact when discussing problems in their daily lives.

The videotapes are then analyzed to determine the degree to which various verbal

and nonverbal expressions of emotion, conflict-resolution styles, and so on, are pre-dictive of marital satisfaction and stability in the couples, both concurrently and

prospectively over a period of years (Gottman, 1993).

One variable that these researchers have examined is the degree to which part-

ners use benign (nonsarcastic) humor during these discussions. Overall, the studies

indicate that individuals who are more satisfied with their marriage, as compared to

those who are unhappily married, show higher levels of humor and laughter and more

reciprocated laughter during the problem discussions (Carstensen, Gottman, and

Levenson, 1995; Gottman, 1994). Thus, greater use of humor while discussing prob-lems is indicative of greater marital harmony. In these concurrent analyses, however,

the direction of causality is still not clear: humor use in problem discussions may be

a result, rather than a cause, of current marital satisfaction.

HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 14!

A more convincing test of the causal role of humor is provided by longitudinalresearch that examines whether greater expression of humor at one point in time pre-dicts long-term marital stability several years later, after controlling for the level of

marital satisfaction at time one. In this type of research, though, the findings have

been less clear-cut. Gottman and his colleagues have consistently found that more fre-

quent expression of positive emotions (such as joy and affection) during the problemdiscussions, as compared to negative emotions (such as anger and contempt), is

strongly related to long-term marital stability. However, the specific contribution of

humor to this prediction has been inconsistent (Gottman, 1994). For example,Gottman and Levenson (1999) were able to predict with 93 percent accuracy the like-

lihood of marital stability versus divorce over a four-year period on the basis of the

amount of affection, anger, disgust, and sadness displayed by spouses during 15-

minute discussions in the laboratory. However, the amount of humor observed in the

discussions did not significantly differentiate between those who remained togetherand those who were divorced or separated four years later.

Other studies using this methodology suggest that the effects ofhumor on marital

stability may depend on several additional factors, and may differ for men and women.For example, a study of newly married couples by Cohan and Bradbury (1997), usingGottman's methodology, found that when humor expression by husbands during a

problem discussion was associated with high levels of major stressful events in the

couple's life, the couples were more likely to be separated or divorced 18 months later.

The authors suggested that husbands' use of humor during times of stress may be a

way for them to temporarily deflect problems and avoid the anxiety associated with

talking about them, but without actively confronting and resolving the problems.

Hence, humor expressed by the husband in the context of major life stress might be

associated with less distress in the short term but not with longer-term marital

stability.

On the other hand, another study of newlywed couples by Gottman and his col-

leagues found that more humor expression by wives during a problem discussion was

predictive of greater marital stability over six years, but only when the wives' humorled to a reduction in the husbands' heart rate during the conversation (Gottman,

Coan, Carrere, and Swanson, 1998). Since men have generally been found to become

more emotionally aroused and agitated than their wives during discussions of marital

problems, this finding suggests that humor may be beneficial to marriage when it is

used by wives in ways that are emotionally calming to their partners. Thus, while hus-

bands' use ofhumor during times of stress can sometimes be a way of avoiding dealingwith problems, wives' use ofhumor can be a way of helping to calm their spouse emo-

tionally while encouraging him to continue dealing with the problems. In turn, these

two different uses of humor by husbands and wives can have different effects on the

long-term stability of the marriage.The evidence discussed so far indicates that the amount of humor communicated

by spouses to each other relates to their current level of marital satisfaction, but is not

always predictive of the long-term stability of their marriage. Some recent research


on younger dating couples suggests that a sense of humor may even be detrimental to

relationship longevity, at least in this early stage of heterosexual relationships. As part

ofher doctoral research, one ofmy students, Patricia Doris (2004), investigated humorin university students who were in dating relationships. She found that, for both males

and females, those who had higher scores on a measure of affiliative humor were

significantly more likely to experience a breakup in their dating relationship within

five months, especially if the other partner expressed some dissatisfaction with the

relationship at time one. Similarly, Keltner and colleagues (1998) found that dating

partners who engaged in more prosocial, friendly teasing when instructed to tease one

another, as compared to those who used more aggressive teasing, were more likely to

break up within several months.

A possible explanation of these surprising findings is that, because people with a

good sense of humor are seen by others as being especially attractive, they are more

likely to be able to find another relationship quite easily if things go badly in their

current one. Consequently, they may be quicker to leave a dating relationship rather

than staying in it and attempting to resolve any problems that may arise. Thus, iron-

ically, a characteristic that makes individuals appear to others to be more desirable as

a dating partner may actually tend to cause their relationships to be less stable over

time. In a similar vein, a study of "fatal attractions" in dating relationships found

that, while a sense of humor may be a characteristic that initially makes a personattractive as a potential dating partner, this same characteristic can later become an

irritant that causes dissatisfaction in the partner, leading to a breakup of the relation-

ship (Felmlee, 1995). This was exemplified by one female participant who reportedthat she "was attracted to her partner because he was 'funny and fan,' but later dis-

liked his 'constant silliness' and the fact that he 'never seemed to take the relation-

ship seriously'" (Felmlee, 1995, p. 303). Further research is needed to determine

whether these counterintuitive findings of greater relationship instability in dating

partners with a higher sense of humor are also found in more committed relation-

ships such as marriage.In summary, research on humor in relationships indicates that, although a sense

of humor is perceived to be a very desirable characteristic in a romantic partner, it

does not necessarily increase the likelihood that the relationship will be more satisfy-

ing and stable over time. The concept of sense of humor has become associated in

popular views with a number of positive connotations and assumptions that are not

necessarily accurate. As we have seen, humor can be used for a range of social pur-

poses, some of which can contribute to cohesiveness and enjoyment, whereas others

are more aggressive and manipulative. The degree to which humor is beneficial

to a relationship therefore depends on the ways it is used in interactions between

partners.

In recent years, researchers in this area have increasingly emphasized the impor-tance of distinguishing between potentially beneficial and detrimental uses of humorin investigating its role in relationships, rather than viewing it as a unitary and purely

positive construct. For example, the Relational Humor Inventory (de Koning and

Weiss, 2002), a recently developed measure for studying humor in relationships, con-

HUMORANDGENDER 14

tains separate scales for positive, negative, and instrumental uses of humor by each

partner (see also R. A. Martin et al., 2003). In Chapter 9, 1 will discuss research usingthese sorts of measures to examine positive and negative effects of humor in dating

relationships and marriage, as well as in nonromantic friendships.

HUMOR AND GENDER

A number of studies were conducted over the past four decades to investigate

gender differences in various aspects of humor. Many additional studies, although not

specifically focusing on gender, reported comparisons of the responses of male and

female participants. Consequently, there is a large amount of data on gender differ-

ences in humor (see Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1998, for a review of this literature).

Much of the early theory and research, prior to the emergence of the women's move-

ment, suggested that, "when it comes to humor, men are more likely to joke, tease,

and kid, whereas women are more likely to act as an appreciative audience than to

produce humor of their own" (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1998, p. 235). Studies of

humor appreciation generally also indicated that men were more likely than womento enjoy humor containing aggressive and sexual themes, whereas women were more

likely to enjoy "nonsense" (i.e., nontendentious) humor (Groch, 1974; Terry and

Ertel, 1974; W. Wilson, 1975). In addition, there was some evidence that both menand women tended to enjoy jokes making fun of women more than jokes targeting

men (Cantor, 1976; Losco and Epstein, 1975).

More recently, researchers have challenged many of the conclusions drawn from

these earlier studies, pointing out a number of biases inherent in their research

methods (e.g., Crawford, 1989). Almost all of the early research examined sex differ-

ences in appreciation of jokes and cartoons, rather than the spontaneous creation of

humor in naturalistic social contexts. For both men and women, jokes and cartoons

are a relatively minor source of humor in everyday life, compared to spontaneous,

socially situated humor (Graeven and Morris, 1975; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999;

Provine, 1993). Moreover, joke-telling tends to be relatively more characteristic of

male humor, whereas women are more likely to relate humorous personal anecdotes

(Crawford and Gressley, 1991). Consequently, studies testing the enjoyment of jokes

likely do not provide a representative view of women's (or even men's) humor more

generally.

In addition, sexual and aggressive jokes are frequently disparaging ofwomen, and

it is therefore not surprising if women enjoy them less than men do (Chapman and

Gadfield, 1976; Love and Deckers, 1989). Indeed, when researchers have used non-

sexist sexual jokes as stimuli (i.e., jokes about sex that do not disparage either womenor men), they generally have not found gender differences in enjoyment ratings

(Chapman and Gadfield, 1976; Hemmasi, Graf, and Russ, 1994; Henkin and Fish,

1986; Prerost, 1983; D. W. Wilson and Molleston, 1981). These studies indicate that

women enjoy sexual humor just as much as men do when it is not demeaning toward

women. Furthermore, whereas women's lower enjoyment ratings of sexual and hostile


jokes were interpreted by researchers as evidence of greater sexual inhibition or con-

ventionality, little thought was given to the possibility that women may also use unin-

hibited and unconventional humor, but for social functions other than the release of

hostility or sexual tension. In sum, much of the past research examining gender dif-

ferences in humor has been characterized by gender biases in the choice of topics

examined, the types of stimuli presented to participants, the operationalization of vari-

ables, and the interpretation of findings (Crawford, 1989).

Some researchers have attempted to remedy these biases in laboratory studies

of gender differences in humor appreciation by varying the gender of the source

and target of disparagement humor or by including examples of feminist humor

(Brodzinsky, Barnet, and Aiello, 1981; Gallivan, 1992; Stillion and White, 1987).

However, since the focus in these studies continues to be on the appreciation ofhumor

stimuli selected by the experimenter, they still do not examine the ways men and

women actually create and use humor in their daily interactions with others. Recently,

researchers in this area, as in other social psychological research on humor, have begunto shift their attention away from the appreciation of jokes to the use of humor in

everyday discourse. Using methods such as questionnaires, daily diaries, and conver-

sational analysis, these studies have attempted to examine gender differences in humor

more naturalistically.

For example, Mary Crawford and Diane Gressley (1991) administered a 68-item

questionnaire to men and women, asking them about their typical appreciation and

creation of humor involving a broad range of topics, styles, and types of humor.

Overall, men and women showed more similarities than differences in their responses.

No gender differences were found, for example, for creativity in humor production,

tendency to laugh at oneself, enjoyment of cartoons and comic strips in newspapersand magazines, and enjoyment of sexual humor. However, men reported greater

enjoyment and creation of hostile humor, a greater tendency to tell canned jokes, and

greater enjoyment of slapstick comedy. On the other hand, women reported greater

use of anecdotal humor, such as recounting funny stories about things that happen to

themselves or others.

My colleague Nicholas Kuiper and I conducted a naturalistic study of laughter in

which we asked men and women to complete daily logs recording all the experiencesthat caused them to laugh over a three-day period (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999).

The sources of humor were grouped into four categories: media, spontaneous social

situations, canned jokes, and recall of humorous past events. Men and women did not

differ in their overall frequency of reported laughter (averaging 17.5 reported laughs

per day). However, women were significantly more likely than men to report laugh-

ing in response to humor arising spontaneously in social situations. No significant

gender differences were found on the other three categories.

Jennifer Hay (2000) analyzed the interpersonal functions of humor occurring in

1 8 tape-recorded conversations among small groups of adult friends, including all-

female, all-male, and mixed-sex groups. The conversations took place in homes of

group members, and, although the participants were aware of being recorded, they

HUMOR AND GENDER 14

were not aware that humor was to be the focus of the study. A number of different

humor functions were identified in the conversations, and these were classified into

three broad categories: (1) power-based (e.g., aggressive teasing), (2) solidarity-based

(e.g., sharing humorous memories, friendly teasing), and (3) psychological (e.g., usinghumor to cope with problems). The data analyses indicated that women were muchmore likely than men to use humor to create or maintain group solidarity, both in

same-sex and mixed-sex groups. This function of humor was over eight times more

frequent for women than for men. In particular, women's greater solidarity-based

humor involved humorous disclosure of personal information, which presumablyenabled the conversational partners to get to know the speaker better and communi-

cated a sense of trust.

Both friendly and aggressive forms of teasing were more likely to occur in all-

female and in all-male than in mixed-sex groups, and teasing was only slightly more

frequent in groups of men as compared to groups of women. Thus, women were

nearly as likely to tease their female friends as men were to tease their male friends.

The use of humor for coping was also more common in single-sex than in mixed-sex

groups. However, a difference was found in the way men and women tend to use

humor to cope. Men were more likely to engage in "contextual" coping (using humorto cope with an immediate problem arising in the context of the conversation),

whereas women were more likely to engage in "noncontextual" coping (using humorin talking about life problems outside the conversational context). Other studies of

gender differences in humor in naturalistic discourse were reported by Lampert and

Ervin-Tripp (1998) and by Robinson and Smith-Lovin (2001).

As these examples of recent research demonstrate, the general shift in humorstudies away from a focus on appreciation of jokes in the laboratory to an exploration

of the interpersonal functions of spontaneous humor in naturalistic contexts has pro-duced changes in researchers' ideas about the relation between humor and gender.

Further research is needed to replicate the findings of these and other similar studies

and to examine their generalizability to other populations. However, the data col-

lected thus far indicate that, although women and men do not differ in their overall

tendency to create and enjoy humor, and there are many similarities in their uses of

humor, they also tend to use humor for somewhat different social purposes.

These gender differences in humorous discourse may be understood in terms of

the way gender is expressed in social interactions more generally (Crawford, 1992;

2003). According to Deborah Tannen (1986; 1990), men and women have somewhat

different conversational goals: for women, the primary goal of friendly conversation

is intimacy, whereas for men the goal is positive self-presentation. These different

goals are also reflected in the ways men and women use humor. Women more often

use humor to enhance group solidarity and intimacy through self-disclosure and mild

self-deprecation, whereas men more often use humor for the purpose of impressing

others, appearing funny, and creating a positive personal identity. Thus, humor is a

mode of communication that, along with more serious communication, is used to

achieve gender-relevant social goals.

SB THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have seen that humor may be viewed as a mode of communi-

cation that occurs in a wide range of everyday social contexts. Although it is playful

and nonserious, and is often seen as frivolous and unimportant, humor can be used

for a number of "serious" functions, extending into every aspect of social behavior.

As sociologist Linda Francis (1994) pointed out, "there is more to explain about

humor than just why it is funny. People have reasons for using humor, goals they wish

to accomplish with it" (p. 157).

According to recent theory, many of the interpersonal functions of humor derive

from its inherently ambiguous nature due to the multiple concurrent meanings that

it conveys. Because of this ambiguity, humor is a useful vehicle for communicatingcertain messages and dealing with situations that would be more difficult to handle

using a more serious, unambiguous mode of communication. Importantly, a messagecommunicated in a humorous manner can be retracted more easily than if it were

expressed in the serious mode, allowing both the speaker and the listener to save face

if the message is not well received. These insights concerning the ambiguity and face-

saving potential of humor have been applied by theorists and researchers to account

for a wide variety of social uses of humor, including self-disclosure and social probing,decommitment and conflict de-escalation, enforcing social norms and exerting social

control, establishing and maintaining status, enhancing group cohesion and identity,

discourse management, and social play.

The multiple interpersonal functions of humor suggest that it may be viewed as

a type of social skill or interpersonal competence. Employed in an adept manner,humor can be a very useful tool for achieving one's interpersonal goals. This does not

mean, however, that humor is always used in prosocial ways. If an individual's goals

in a particular situation are to establish meaningful relationships, enhance intimacy,

and resolve conflicts, the sensitive use of humor may be an effective vehicle for fur-

thering these aims. However, if the goal is to gain an advantage, manipulate, domi-

nate, or belittle others, humor can be a useful skill for those purposes as well.

Because of its inherent ambiguity, humor can be employed for a variety of con-

tradictory purposes. It can be used to bring people closer together or to exclude them,to violate social norms or to enforce them, to dominate over and manipulate people,or to ingratiate oneself with others. Humor can also be used to reinforce stereotypesor to shatter prejudices, to resolve conflicts in relationships or to avoid dealing with

problems, to convey feelings of affection and tolerance, or to denigrate and express

hostility. Most people likely use humor for many of these different purposes at dif-

ferent times and in different contexts. For example, when you are at work, you mightuse humor to reinforce your status, whereas when you are relaxing with a group of

friends, you might use it to enhance group cohesion.

Besides being an interesting topic of study in its own right within social psy-

chology, humor also has important implications for our understanding of a numberof other topic areas that have long been of interest to social psychologists, including

person perception and attraction, persuasion, attitudes and prejudice, intimate rela-

CONCLUSION

tionships, and gender differences. By studying the role ofhumor in each of these areas,

we gain new insights that would not be apparent if we focused only on the serious

mode of communication.

The role of humor often turns out to be more complex than one might initially

expect. For example, although a sense of humor is generally viewed as a desirable

characteristic in a friend or romantic partner, research indicates that it can contribute

in both positive and negative ways to relationship satisfaction and stability, depend-

ing on how it is used in the relationship. Similarly, in the area of persuasion, a humor-

ous message may contribute to greater persuasiveness with certain topics and

audiences, but it can reduce persuasiveness with others.

The existing research suggests that the role of humor in many areas of social psy-

chology may be at least as important, if not more so, than some other factors that

have typically received greater research attention. For example, there is some evidence

(Cann et al., 1997; Feingold, 1981) that humor may have a stronger influence on inter-

personal attraction than do attitude similarity and physical attractiveness, both of

which have been the focus of considerably more research. The importance of humorin the areas of prejudice and stereotypes, gender differences, and intimate relation-

ships may also be more substantial than has generally been recognized in the existing

research on these topics. Clearly, to gain a full understanding of most aspects of social

behavior, researchers need to give attention to the complex contributions of humor.

In view of the ubiquity of humor in social interaction, its obviously importantsocial functions, and its relevance to most of the topics of interest to social psychol-

ogy, one might expect that humor would be a fairly prominent topic in social psy-

chology as a whole. Surprisingly, however, the study of humor tends to be a relatively

minor topic that is largely ignored by the mainstream. Most of the leading social psy-

chology textbooks contain no mention of humor or its cognates. The most recent

edition of The Handbook ofSocial Psychology (Gilbert et al., 1998), a two-volume "bible"

for the field that spans more than 2000 pages, contains only a single brief mention of

humor. By and large, social psychologists seem to focus almost exclusively on serious

modes of communication in social interactions, while ignoring the important func-

tions of the humorous mode.

Recent insights about the interpersonal uses of humor that I have discussed in

this chapter could provide a basis for interesting new theoretical models and hypothe-ses for future research. As these ideas become more widely known, they will hope-

fully stimulate greater interest among social psychologists in the topic of humor.

Because humor is such a broad topic, the greatest empirical advances will likely be

achieved by developing more narrowly focused theoretical models concerning specific

humor components or processes. A good example of the types of relatively focused

and heuristically useful theoretical models that are needed in this area is the face threat

analysis of teasing developed by Keltner and colleagues (2001). Numerous research

questions and hypotheses derived from this model remain to be addressed in future

research (see Keltner et al., 1998, for further research ideas).

As we will see throughout this book, recognition of the essentially social nature

ofhumor also has important implications for other domains of psychology. In Chapter


4, we saw that recent research on cognitive processes involved in the comprehensionof irony and sarcasm has increasingly taken into account the influence of interper-

sonal aspects of these forms of humor. The interpersonal view ofhumor has also influ-

enced recent approaches to the study of individual differences in sense of humor,which we will explore in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, we will examine social aspects of

the development of humor and laughter in infancy and childhood. A social perspec-tive may also be very useful for increasing our understanding of mental health aspects

of humor and its role in coping with life stress, as we will see in Chapter 9. In sum,while the existing research on the social psychology of humor has provided a numberof interesting insights into the interpersonal functions of humor, this continues to be

a potentially very fertile field for future investigation, with important implications for

all areas of psychology.

CHAPTER

.Like all psychological phenomena, humoris based on a large number of complex biological processes taking place in the brain

and nervous system. To experience humor, an individual must first perceive playful

incongruity in a stimulus event. This perceptual process draws on systems located in

many regions of the cerebral cortex involved in visual and auditory perception, lan-

guage comprehension, social cognition, logical reasoning, and so forth. When humoris perceived, these cognitive processes stimulate emotional systems associated with

positive feelings of mirth and amusement, involving areas in the prefrontal cortex and

limbic system. These emotion systems also release a cocktail of biochemical mole-

cules, producing further changes in the brain and throughout the body via the auto-

nomic nervous system and endocrine system. In addition, the activation of mirthful

emotion typically triggers the expressive responses of smiling and laughter, which

involve the brainstem and its connections to the forebrain, as well as nerves leadingto muscles in the face, larynx, and respiratory system.

The investigation of these sorts of biological processes in humor lies within the

domain of biological psychology (also known as psychobiology or physiological psy-

chology), the branch of the discipline that studies the relation between behavior

and the body, particularly the brain. Biological psychology is part of a broader field

of study known as neuroscience, which also includes disciplines such as neurophysi-

ology, neuroanatomy, and brain biochemistry. Although the study of humor and

laughter has not been a major focus in biological psychology, there has been a small

153

6 THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

but steady output of research on this topic over the years. The recent publication

of several functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (e.g., Azim et al.,

2005) as well as articles on topics such as the evolution of humor and laughter (e.g.,

Gervais and Wilson, 2005) suggest that interest in this topic is increasing (see also

Vaid, 2002).

As we will see, biological research on humor and laughter highlights the impor-tance of emotional components of humor in addition to the cognitive aspects, point-

ing to humor as an interesting topic for investigating the interplay between emotion

and cognition more generally. As such, the psychobiological study of humor may be

viewed as a subject within the newly developing field of affective neuroscience

(Panksepp, 1998). Our discussion of biological aspects of humor also provides an

opportunity to focus more closely on many interesting questions concerning the

nature and functions of laughter.

In this chapter, I will begin by discussing laughter as an emotional display that

expresses the positive emotion of mirth, followed by an overview of research on the

acoustics, respiration, phonation, and facial expressions of laughter, as well as the auto-

nomic and visceral concomitants of mirth. The subsequent discussion of laughter in

nonhuman animals will underscore the close connection between humor, laughter,

and play. I will then explore several other laughter-related topics, including patho-

logical laughter conditions, laughter and the brain, and tickling as a stimulus for

laughter. Next, I will turn to investigations of the brain areas involved in the cogni-tive and emotional processing of humor, including studies of humor in patients with

localized brain damage as well as studies of normal subjects using EEG and fMRI.

Finally, I will discuss theories about the evolutionary origins and adaptive functions

of humor and laughter.

THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER

As many authors have noted, boisterous laughter comprises a very strange set of

behaviors. A hypothetical alien from outer space would certainly be struck by the

oddity of this behavior, noting the loud, barking noises that are emitted, the repeti-

tive contractions of the diaphragm and associated changes in respiration, the openmouth and grimaces caused by contractions of facial muscles, the flushing of the skin,

increased heart rate and general physiological arousal, production of tears in the eyes,

loss of strength in the extremities, and flailing body movements (cf. Askenasy, 1987;

Keith-Spiegel, 1972). Such hearty laughter seems to take over the whole organism in

an uncontrollable and compulsive way, conveying almost overwhelming feelings of

enjoyment and amusement. It is also very contagious and difficult to fake (van Hooff

and Preuschoft, 2003). What a peculiar way for people to respond to the perceptionof humor!

Koestler (1964) characterized laughter as a physiological reflex, and suggestedthat it is the only domain in which a highly complex mental stimulus (i.e., humor)

produces such a stereotyped reflexive response. However, as van Hooff and Preuschoft


(2003) have pointed out, the term reflex is a misnomer because, unlike reflexes, laugh-ter is highly dependent on motivational and emotional states and social context.

Instead, laughter seems to be best characterized as a "fixed action pattern," a ritual-

ized and largely stereotyped behavior pattern that serves as a communication

signal.

Laughter and Emotion

As Charles Darwin (1872) noted in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and

Animals, laughter is essentially an emotional expression, a way of communicating to

others that one is feeling a particular emotion. Thus, laughter is one of many largely

hardwired behavior patterns used by humans to communicate a wide range of posi-

tive and negative emotions, including various facial expressions (e.g., scowling, frown-

ing), vocal sounds (e.g., gasping, screaming), bodily actions (e.g., trembling, shakingthe fist), changes in speech patterns (e.g., shouting, whining), and so on. In the

case of laughter, the particular emotion that is communicated is a pleasurable feeling

closely related to joy. As noted in Chapter 1,researchers have not yet settled on an

agreed-upon technical name for this emotion, with different scholars referring to

it as "amusement," "humor appreciation," or "exhilaration." I prefer the term

mirth, which captures its emotional nature as well as its association with humor and

laughter.

The emotion of mirth is therefore primary, with laughter (along with smiling)

being an emotional display. The more intense the emotion, the stronger the expres-

sive display. At low levels of intensity, mirth is expressed by a faint smile, which turns

into a broader smile and then audible chuckling and laughter as the emotional inten-

sity increases. At very high intensity, it is expressed by loud guffaws, often accompa-nied by a reddening of the face as well as bodily movements such as throwing back

the head, rocking the body, slapping one's thighs, and so on. Although, as we will

see, there is evidence that smiling and laughter may have different evolutionary

origins, they are very closely related in humans, with smiling and laughter occurring

along a continuum of emotional intensity. The same facial muscles are involved in

laughter and smiling, with stronger contractions of longer duration occurring in

laughter than in smiling (Ruch, 1993). The close connection between smiling and

laughter is also evident in the fact that laughter typically begins as a smile and, after

the laughter ends, gradually fades smoothly back into a smile once again (Pollio, Mers,

and Lucchesi, 1972).

Like all emotions, mirth has behavioral, physiological, and experiential compo-nents. In addition to the vocalizations, facial expressions, and bodily actions that

characterize the expressive behavior of laughter, mirth involves a range of physiolog-

ical changes that take place in the brain, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine

system, along with subjective feelings of pleasure, amusement, and cheerfulness. I will

discuss each of these components in the following sections. As we will see, the emotion

of mirth that is expressed by laughter also appears to be closely related to play. Muchof the laughter of early childhood may be seen as an expression of the exuberant


delight associated with physical play activities such as running, chasing, and rough-and-tumble play-fighting, as well as incongruous playful actions such as peek-a-boo

games.Since social play is an important activity in juveniles of all mammal species, the

evolutionary origins of mirth and laughter in play may well extend to our earliest

mammalian ancestors some 60 million years ago. As children's cognitive and linguis-

tic abilities develop, they begin to laugh not only at physical play, but also in responseto the sorts of playful manipulation of incongruous ideas, words, and concepts that

we call "humor." Thus, humor may be viewed as a cognitive-linguistic form of

play that elicits the emotion of mirth which, in turn, is typically expressed through

laughter.

Humor may not be the only stimulus that elicits the emotion of mirth and the

laughter that expresses it. This emotion may also be elicited by several other stimuli,

including nitrous oxide (N2O, or "laughing gas") and possibly tickling (Niethammer,

1983; Ruch, 1993). At any particular time, an individual's threshold for experiencingmirth can be raised or lowered by a variety of factors, such as the social context (e.g.,

feelings of safety, the presence of other people who are laughing), one's current mood

(cheerfulness versus depression; Deckers, 1998; Ruch, 1997), health status, level of

fatigue, ingestion of alcohol or psychoactive drugs (Lowe et al., 1997; J. B. Weaver

et al., 1985), and more enduring personality traits such as one's overall sense ofhumor

(Ruch, 1993).

Acoustics of Laughter

The characteristic that most strikingly distinguishes laughter from other humanactivities is the loud and distinctive sounds that are emitted. As we will see, the func-

tion of these laughter sounds appears to be both to communicate to others one's joyful

and playful emotional state, and to induce this same emotional state in the listeners

(Gervais and Wilson, 2005). In recent years, researchers have begun to studythe acoustics (sound properties) of laughter, employing methods commonly used by

ethologists to investigate animal vocalizations such as bird songs. In this research,

recordings of human laughter are digitized and then analyzed using computer-based

spectrographic procedures to examine their audio waveforms, frequency patterns, and

other acoustical characteristics. The unit of analysis in these studies is usually the

series of "ha-ha-ha" sounds that are made during a single exhalation. Researchers refer

to such a laugh episode as a laughter bout, and the individual "ha" syllables are referred

to as calls (Bachorowski et al., 2001), notes (Provine and Yong, 1991), or pulses (Ruchand Ekman, 2001).

Psychologists Robert Provine and Yvonne Yong (1991), at the University ofMary-land, analyzed the acoustical properties of 5 1 laughter bouts produced by male and

female university students and staff members. To obtain recordings of laughter, they

approached people in public places with a tape recorder and asked them to "simulate

hearty laughter." Most people found it very difficult to laugh on command, and their

first attempts were typically strained and artificial, presumably because they were not

THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER 15

actually experiencing the emotion of mirth that laughter normally expresses.

However, the funniness of the activity itself, along with the clowning and kidding of

the experimenters, typically caused the subjects to begin feeling amused and theystarted laughing spontaneously and naturally. It was these natural and spontaneousbouts of laughter that were subsequently analyzed.

These analyses revealed that, on average, each laugh bout consisted of four indi-

vidual notes or calls, although there was considerable variability in this number,

ranging from one to as many as 16 in some laughter samples, but typically no more

than eight. Each laugh note within a bout was found to begin with a protracted voice-

less aspirant (i.e., a hissing h sound not produced by vibration of the vocal cords). This

was followed by a forcefully voiced vowellike sound with an average duration of about

75 milliseconds. Another voiceless aspirant then followed, with an average duration

of about 135 milliseconds, followed by the next voiced vowel sound. Thus, each com-

plete "ha" note was about 210 milliseconds in duration, resulting in about five notes

typically being emitted per second. Not surprisingly, the fundamental frequency

(corresponding to the perceived pitch) of male laughter (averaging 276 Hertz) was

lower than that of females (502 Hertz), reflecting the lower pitch of men's voices.

Each laugh note showed a clear harmonic structure, with numerous secondary fre-

quencies occurring as multiples of the fundamental frequency, producing a richly

harmonious quality.

Based on their analyses, Provine and Yong emphasized the stereotypical nature

of laughter, observing that there was very little variability across people in such char-

acteristics as the overall duration of individual notes. Regardless of the number of

notes in a given bout of laughter, the duration of each note (onset-to-onset inter-note

interval, or INI) seemed to remain fairly constant, at about 210 milliseconds.

However, the voiced segment ("vowel sound") of each note became slightly shorter

from the beginning to the end of a laugh bout, while the intervening unvoiced (h

sound) segments became correspondingly longer, thus maintaining the same overall

duration for each note. They also observed that the amplitude (loudness) of each

voiced note segment decreased from the beginning to the end of a bout. Interestingly,

when played backwards, a laugh bout sounds quite normal, except for the fact that it

becomes progressively louder instead of quieter. This is quite different from human

speech, which does not sound at all normal when played backwards.

Because Provine and Yong's (1991) analyses were conducted on a relatively small

sample of laughs obtained from people who were asked to produce laughter on

demand, they may not have been representative of the full range of laughter that

occurs naturally in social settings. Consequently, they may have concluded that laugh-ter is more stereotyped and unvarying than it actually is. More recently, Jo-AnneBachorowski and her colleagues (2001), at Vanderbilt University, conducted more

extensive acoustical analyses of laughter using recordings of 1024 laughter bouts from

97 male and female university students. To obtain a wide range of naturalistic laugh-ter samples, recordings were made while the participants were watching humorous

videotapes in a comfortable laboratory setting, either alone or in same-sex or mixed-

sex dyads.

)8 6 THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

In contrast to the stereotypy of laughter emphasized by Provine and Yong, these

researchers found evidence of a great deal of variability and complexity in the acoustic

properties of laughter. Several different types of individual laugh calls (notes) were

identified, including voiced "songlike," unvoiced "gruntlike," and unvoiced "snort-

like" calls, in addition to "glottal pulses," and "glottal whistles." Several of these dif-

ferent types of calls were often observed within a single bout of laughter, and there

was little consistency within individual participants in the types of calls that they pro-duced from one laugh bout to another. However, some general sex differences were

observed. Females produced significantly more bouts containing voiced, songlike

calls, whereas males produced more unvoiced, gruntlike laughs. Men and women did

not differ, though, in the frequency of unvoiced snortlike laughs. Although there were

no sex differences in the overall number of laugh bouts produced in response to the

humorous videotapes, men^ bouts tended to be slightly longer than women's, with

more calls per bout.

On average, laugh bouts were comprised of 3 .4 calls per bout, with a total dura-

tion of 870 milliseconds, but there was a great deal of variability in these numbers.

Laugh bouts typically began with a fairly long call (280 milliseconds duration) fol-

lowed by a series of shorter calls (lasting 130 milliseconds each). Like Provine and

Yong, these researchers found that the unvoiced ^-sound segments between calls

tended to be shorter at the beginning of a bout and then became progressively longertoward the end. Analyses of fundamental frequencies of calls also indicated a consid-

erable amount of variability, both between and within individuals. Indeed, the funda-

mental frequencies were often found to change over the course of an individual call,

either rising or falling in pitch. Compared to shorter bouts, longer bouts of laughtertended to have higher mean fundamental frequencies and greater shifts in frequencywithin calls.

Analyses of the vowel sounds in voiced calls revealed that these are not nearly as

distinct or clearly articulated as the vowels of speech, but tend to be a central, unar-

ticulated schwa (like the a sound in "about"). Contrary to the observations of Provine

and Yong (1991), "ho-ho" and "he-he" laughs were extremely rare, while "ha-ha" was

much more common. Nonetheless, there was some evidence that individuals tend to

have distinct laughs based on slight variations in the vowel sounds and other vocal

characteristics that they produce while laughing. Bachorowski and her colleagues con-

cluded that laughter is much less stereotyped than claimed by Provine and Yong(1991), but instead should be conceptualized as a "repertoire of sounds." Arguing that

laughter has an important social communication function (discussed in Chapter 5),

they suggested that these different sounds of laughter are combined in various waysto communicate subtle differences in emotional meanings to other people.

In a series of experiments, Silke Kipper and Dietmar Todt (2001, 2003a, 2003b),

at the Free University of Berlin, took a somewhat different approach to studying the

acoustics of laughter. Using computer equipment, they systematically modified

various acoustical parameters of natural laughter bouts, such as the duration of laugh

notes, the fundamental frequencies, and amplitude (loudness). They then had partic-

ipants listen to these altered laugh bouts and asked them to rate the degree to which


these laughs sounded like normal laughter, as well as rating their emotional responsesto them. Among a number of interesting findings, these researchers found that laugh-ter can diverge to a considerable degree on various acoustical parameters and still be

perceived as normal laughter. Moreover, laugh bouts that showed substantial vari-

ability across calls were considered more natural and elicited more positive emotional

responses as compared to more stereotyped bouts containing little variability. These

findings cast further doubt on the view of laughter as a highly stereotyped vocaliza-

tion. Additional findings from these studies supported the view of laughter as a

method ofcommunicating positive emotions and eliciting similar emotional responsesin others. For example, the more natural-sounding a laugh bout was rated to be, the

more it elicited a positive emotional response (for additional acoustical research on

laughter, see Mowrer, 1994; Mowrer, LaPointe, and Case, 1987; Nwokah et al., 1999;

Vettin and Todt, 2004).

Laughter Respiration and Phonation

To produce the distinctive sounds of laughter, we make use of a number of muscles

that control our breathing, larynx, and vocal apparatus (for a detailed description see

Ruch and Ekman, 2001). The normal human breathing cycle consists of inspiration,

inspiration pause, expiration, and expiration pause. Regardless of where the person

happens to be in this cycle, laughter typically begins with an initial forced exhalation

(Lloyd, 1938), which brings the lung volume down to around functional residual

capacity (i.e., the volume that remains after a normal expiration). This is followed bya sustained sequence of repeated, rapid, and shallow expirations, which, when accom-

panied by phonation, produce the "ha-ha-ha" of laughter. By the end of this expira-

tory laugh bout, the lungs reach residual volume (i.e., the air volume remaining in the

lungs after maximal expiration). Thus, laughter typically occurs at a low lung volume,

forcing out more air from the lungs than occurs during normal breathing. Followinga laughter bout, a quick inhalation occurs, filling the lungs once again to normal capac-

ity. Another laughter bout may then follow. Due to this unusual amount of expira-

tion, laughter produces a greatly increased breathing amplitude, up to 2.5 times

greater than that which occurs during normal breathing.

The predominantly expiratory respiration pattern during laughter is produced bysaccadic contractions of muscles that are normally passive during expiration, includ-

ing the diaphragm, abdominal (rectus abdominus), and rib cage (triangularis stemi}

muscles (Ruch and Ekman, 2001). Along with the action of these respiratory muscles,

respiration during laughter is also regulated by the larynx, which serves as a valve sep-

arating the trachea from the upper aerodigestive tract. In the larynx, the glottis (com-

prising the vocal folds) initially closes to prevent the air from being exhaled too

quickly, causing a buildup of subglottal air pressure. The glottis, aided by the ary-

tenoid cartilages, then begins to open and close rhythmically, permitting short bursts

of pressurized air to escape. Each time the glottis closes to a narrow slit, the vocal

cords begin to vibrate, producing the "ha" sounds. Because the glottis continues

to move and change shape while these vibrations are occurring, the fundamental


frequency (pitch) of the sound produced rises and falls during each individual call, as

well as changing from one call to the next, rather than maintaining a constant fre-

quency. Each time the glottis opens more widely, it stops vibrating, and the escapingair produces the unvoiced h sound between each voiced call.

These sound vibrations are carried through the vocal tract, whose shape ampli-fies or dampens various frequency characteristics of the sounds, and finally the air

escapes through the mouth or nose. The amount of tension on the vocal cords; posi-

tion of the larynx, tongue, and jaw; shape of the mouth and lips; and even the degreeof contraction of various facial muscles (all of which can be influenced by the person's

current emotional state) further influence the sound quality of the laughter. As found

in research on the acoustics of laughter (Bachorowski et al., 2001), there is also a greatdeal of variability, both within and between individuals, in the patterns of respiration

and phonation during laughter (W. F. Fry and Rader, 1977; Svebak, 1975, 1977). Thus,

people seem to have distinctive "laugh signatures," making their laughs as recogniz-able as their voices. However, individuals also demonstrate a great deal of variability

in their laughter acoustics depending in part on their current emotional state, result-

ing in characteristic fearful, embarrassed, aggressive, and other emotionally tinged

laughs in addition to pure enjoyment laughs.

Facial Expressions of Laughter and Smiling

Besides the loud and distinctive "ha-ha-ha" sounds, laughter is characterized bya distinctive facial display, which closely resembles smiling. This emotional facial

display is another way laughter serves as a communication signal. Paul Ekman and his

colleagues, at the University of California at San Francisco, have conducted extensive

research on facial expressions of emotion, including smiling and laughter (Ekman,

Davidson, and Friesen, 1990; Ekman and Friesen, 1978; Frank and Ekman, 1993).

Although they have identified 1 8 different types of smiles, Ekman and his colleagueshave found only one that is reliably associated with genuine enjoyment or amusement.

They have named this smile the Duchenne display, after the French anatomist who first

identified it in 1 862 . Other types of smiles are associated with feigned amusement

("forced" or "faked" smiles) or the presence of negative emotions such as embarrass-

ment or anxiety mixed with the enjoyment.The Duchenne display involves symmetrical, synchronous, and smooth contrac-

tions of both the zygomatic major and the obicularis oculi muscles of the face (see Figure

4). The zygomatic major is the muscle in the cheeks that pulls the lip corners upwardsand backwards, while the obicularis oculi is the muscle that surrounds each eye socket

and causes wrinkling of the skin at the outer sides of the eyes ("crow's feet"). Althoughmost types of smiles involve contractions of the zygomatic major, only genuine enjoy-ment smiles also involve the obicularis oculi, which is less subject to voluntary control.

Smiles that involve other facial muscles besides these two generally indicate the pres-ence of other (often negative) emotions besides pure enjoyment. For example, con-

tractions of muscles in the forehead during smiling tend to be associated with negativeemotions (S. L. Brown and Schwartz, 1980).


FIGURE 4 The Duchenne display expresses genuine mirth. Note the "crow's feet" at

outsides of eyes due to contraction of obicularis oculi muscles. Barbara Penoyar/Getty

Images/PhotoDisc

The Duchenne display occurs in laughter as well as smiling, although laughter

often includes some additional muscles, such as those involved in opening the mouth

and lowering the jaw (Ruch and Ekman, 2001). Thus, the presence or absence of the

Duchenne display can be used by researchers (as well as any careful observer in social

interactions) to determine whether a person's smiling or laughter is expressing

genuine, spontaneous enjoyment or if it betrays other emotions or is being used to

feign amusement. In particular, the presence of "crow's feet" wrinkles along the out-

sides of the eyes is an indicator of genuine amusement.

Ekman and Friesen (1978) have developed the Facial Action Coding System

(FAGS) for use by trained observers to code the various facial action units controlled

by different muscles of the face in the expression of different emotions. Although this

system requires some training and practice, it is very useful for researchers who are

interested in studying laughter, as it provides them a way of distinguishing between

Duchenne and non-Duchenne laughter. There is a considerable amount of research

evidence that laughter with and without the Duchenne display has very different psy-

chological meanings.Differences between Duchenne and nonDuchenne laughter were demonstrated

in a study by Dacher Keltner and George Bonanno (1997) at the University of Cali-

fornia at Berkeley. They videotaped interviews of adults whose spouses had died six


months previously, and used the FACS to code the laughter produced by these par-

ticipants during the interviews. Greater frequencies ofDuchenne laughter were found

to be significantly correlated with more positive emotions such as happiness and joy,

and less negative emotions such as anger, distress, and guilt. The amount ofDuchenne

laughter was also positively associated with better social adjustment, recollections of

a more satisfactory relationship with the deceased spouse, and better current rela-

tionships with others. In contrast, non-Duchenne laughter was not related to any of

these variables.

The videotapes, with the sound turned off, were later shown to college

students who were asked to rate them on a number of dimensions. More frequentDuchenne laughter in the bereaved participants was significantly correlated with

higher self-ratings of positive emotions in the observers themselves and with the

observers' judgments that the participant was healthier, better adjusted, less frustrated,

and more amusing. Thus, subtle differences in facial expressions during laughter,

signaling the presence or absence of the Duchenne display, communicate quite dif-

ferent emotional states, and these expressions in turn influence the emotional

responses of observers. These findings further highlight the role of laughter as a form

of emotional communication.

AUTONOMIC AND VISCERAL CONCOMITANTS OF MIRTH

Like other emotions, the emotion of mirth that is expressed by laughter also

produces changes in many parts of the body via the autonomic nervous system and

the endocrine (hormone) system (Cacioppo et al., 2000). Since the 1960s, manyresearchers have investigated mirth-related changes in heart rate, skin conductance,

blood pressure, skin temperature, muscle tension, and so on. In these studies, partic-

ipants are attached via electrodes and sensors to polygraph machines, and various psy-

chophysiological variables are assessed while they are exposed to humorous stimuli

such as comedy videotapes. Control conditions involving nonhumorous, emotionallyneutral stimuli, or stimuli that elicit other emotions (e.g., fear, sadness, anger), are

also included for comparison. Although there have been some inconsistent findings

(e.g., Harrison et al., 2000; Hubert and de Jong-Meyer, 1991), the results of these

investigations generally indicate that mirth is associated with increased activity of the

sympathetic nervous system, the branch of the autonomic nervous system associated

with the well-known fight-or-flight response (see McGhee, 1983b, for a review of

early research).

Lennart Levi (1965) found significant increases in adrenaline and noradrenaline

output (measured in urine samples) while subjects watched a comedy film as com-

pared to watching an emotionally neutral nature film, and these humor-related

increases were comparable to those found with fear- and anger-evoking films. Other

experiments have found mirth-related increases in heart rate, skin conductance, and

other variables associated with sympathetic arousal (Averill, 1969; P. S. Foster,

Webster, and Williamson, 2002; Godkewitsch, 1976; Goldstein et al., 1975; Hubert

AUTONOMIC AND VISCERAL CONCOMITANTS OF MIRTH

and de Jong-Meyer, 1990; J. M. Jones and Harris, 1971; Langevin and Day, 1972;

Marci, Moran, and Orr, 2004). These effects indicate activation of the sympathetic-

adrenal-medullary (SAM) system, the well-known fight-or-flight response of sympa-thetic nervous system arousal under the control of the hypothalamus, which is also

involved in stress-related emotional responses such as fear and anger. In several of

these experiments, the participants were asked to rate the funniness of the humor

stimuli, and significant positive correlations were found between these funniness

ratings and the amount of increase in physiological arousal. Thus, higher levels of

amusement (which presumably indicate stronger feelings of mirth) were systemati-

cally related to greater increases in sympathetic nervous system activation.

In addition to SAM activation, there is some evidence that extended periods of

mirth are associated with activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical

(HPA) system, the classic stress response that causes the adrenal cortex to release cor-

tisol into the bloodstream. Although exposure to a fairly brief (nine minutes duration)

humorous animated cartoon did not produce an increase in salivary cortisol levels

(Hubert and de Jong-Meyer, 1990), a longer (90 minutes duration) and arguably more

humorous film (a Monty Python movie) did produce significant increases in cortisol

compared to an emotionally neutral nature film (Hubert et al., 1993). In the latter

study, 50 percent of participants showed HPA activation, as indicated by significantly

increased cortisol levels relative to baseline, starting about one hour after the begin-

ning of the comedy film and continuing for one hour after the film ended. The amount

of increase in cortisol over baseline was also found to be positively correlated with

participants' ratings of the funniness of the film, indicating that the more amusing the

film was perceived to be (and therefore the more mirth experienced), the more cor-

tisol was released.

It is worth noting that these increases in physiological arousal are likely best

viewed as a function of the emotion of mirth rather than being a consequence of

laughter per se. Significant increases in heart rate and skin conductance have also been

found when a mirthful emotional state was induced by having research participants

vividly remember or imagine a humorous experience, without actually laughing (P. S.

Foster et al., 2002). In addition, the observed correlations between funniness ratings

and changes in physiological variables support the view that the degree of arousal is

related to subjective feelings of amusement rather than to the amount of laughter.

Thus, rather than laughter causing physiological arousal, it seems more accurate to

view both laughter and peripheral autonomic arousal as being relatively independent

(although correlated) consequences of the emotional state of mirth.

Overall, these research findings indicate that mirth is associated with a pattern of

increased arousal similar to the fight-or-flight response, which prepares the body for

vigorous activity. However, there is also some evidence for the common notion that

mirth causes a loss of muscle tone. With vigorous laughter, people often feel a weak-

ness in their limbs and occasionally even fall to the floor, and the expression "weak

with laughter" is common to many languages (Overeem, Lammers, and Van Dijk,

1999). An early study found a decrease in muscle tone in the forearm of subjects

while they were laughing (Paskind, 1932). More recently, Sebastiaan Overeem and his


colleagues (1999) examined the effects of mirth on the //-reflex, which is assessed by

electrically stimulating a nerve in the leg and using electromyography (EMG) to

measure the resultant activation of an adjacent muscle. The strength (amplitude) of

this reflex is governed by descending pathways from the brain. A severe reduction in

amplitude is indicative of motor inhibition or muscle weakness, such as that seen in

cases of cataplexy, in which afflicted individuals suddenly collapse due to a general loss

of muscle tone.

In their study, Overeem and colleagues found that the //-reflex decreased byalmost 90 percent while individuals were laughing in response to humorous slides. Asubsequent study demonstrated that this effect is due to the emotion of mirth under-

lying laughter, rather than the respiratory or motoric effects of laughter itself

(Overeem et al., 2004). Thus, there appears to be truth to the idea that laughter causes

muscle weakness, although it seems more accurate to say that this weakness is caused

by the mirthful emotion underlying laughter. This phenomenon is the basis of theo-

ries suggesting that laughter is a "disabling mechanism" whose function is to preventindividuals from acting in counterproductive ways (Chafe, 1987), as well as sugges-tions that humor and laughter might be used in psychotherapy as a relaxation induc-

tion technique (Prerost and Ruma, 1987).

It may seem puzzling that the positive emotion of mirth is accompanied by the

same general pattern of physiological arousal as are stress-related negative emotions

like fear and anger. If mirth is a positive emotion that is presumably beneficial to

health, why does it have the same physiological effects as stress-related emotions that

are known to be injurious to health? One possible explanation for these findings has

to do with the hypothesis that the positive emotion associated with laughter origi-

nated in rough-and-tumble play. Just as many systems of the body are rapidly mobi-

lized for the exertion of either fighting or fleeing during times of threat, many of these

same systems may also be activated for the exuberant, exciting, and prosocial chasing,

fleeing, jumping, and wrestling ofmammalian play. It should also be noted that stress-

related illnesses tend to result from chronic activation and inadequate recovery from

sympathetic arousal (Mayne, 2001). The more phasic short-term arousal associated

with mirth is therefore less likely to have such adverse consequences.

Moreover, it is still unclear whether the physiological arousal associated with

mirth is identical to the arousal accompanying negative stress-related emotions, or

whether it is different in some respects. There is some evidence that mirth and other

positive emotions may be distinguished from negative emotions on the basis of the

overall pattern of physiological changes associated with them (Christie and Friedman,

2004; Harrison et al., 2000). For example, positive emotions, compared to negative

emotions, seem to involve a smaller increase in blood pressure and less autonomic

activation overall (Cacioppo et al., 2000). However, the research to date is inconclu-

sive, and there continues to be some controversy concerning the "emotional speci-

ficity" of autonomic nervous system activity.

Some researchers (e.g., Gray, 1994; LeDoux, 1994) have also pointed out that

peripheral changes in the autonomic nervous system and endocrine system may be

the wrong place to look for physiological differences among different emotions, since

LAUGHTER IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS

these systems have to do with functions that may be common to many different emo-

tions, such as energy requirements, metabolism, and tissue repair. Instead, they have

argued that more important differences are likely to be found in the brain systemsthat underlie different emotions. Thus, although the somatovisceral changes accom-

panying mirth may be quite similar to those associated with negative emotions like

anger and fear, there are likely to be important differences in the brain systems under-

lying these emotions, including the biochemical molecules (e.g., neuropeptides, neu-

rotransmitters, opioids) that are produced (Panksepp, 1993, 1994). These in turn mayhave different implications for health, such as different effects on components of the

immune system (Kennedy, Glaser, and Kiecolt-Glaser, 1990). This is an important

topic for future investigation. Potential effects of humor and laughter on physical

health will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.


Although some writers have suggested that humans are the only animal that

laughs (e.g., Stearns, 1972), there is good reason to believe that homologous behav-

iors also exist in other animals, particularly our closest ape relatives. Charles Darwin

(1872), who viewed laughter as an expression of the positive emotions of joy and hap-

piness, described a form of laughter that is emitted by young chimpanzees when theyare being tickled. This observation has been supported by more recent primate

research, which suggests that laughter in humans is homologous with (i.e., has the

same evolutionary origin as) the relaxed open-mouth display or "play face" seen in

monkeys and apes (Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997; van Hooff, 1972; van Hooff and

Preuschoft, 2003).

The Play Face

Van Hooff and Preuschoft (2003, p. 267) described this facial expression as

follows:

The mouth is opened wide and the mouth corners may be slightly retracted. In most (but not all!)

primate species the lips are not retracted but still cover the teeth. In many species this facial posture

is often accompanied by a rhythmic staccato shallow breathing (play chuckles) and by vehement but

supple body movements. The posture and movements, both of the face and of the body as a whole,

lack the tension, rigidity, and brusqueness that is characteristic of expressions of aggression, threat,

and fear.

The play face, as the name suggests, occurs while the animals are involved in social

play. Play is a common activity among juveniles, not only in primates but in all

mammal species and even some birds. In play, many activities that are normally impor-tant for survival, such as hunting, fighting, mating, fleeing, and simple locomotion

(jumping, sliding, pirouetting), are performed "just for fun," with a great deal of exu-

berance and energy. Young primates spend many hours in playful mock fighting,

6 THE PS YCHOBIO LOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

chasing, attacking, wrestling, and tickling one another, perhaps as a way of program-

ming various cortical functions and developing the social skills needed to performsuch behaviors in more "serious" contexts later in life (Gervais and Wilson, 2005;

Panksepp, 1998). Since many of these behaviors would normally be construed by other

individuals as aggressive and could lead to serious retaliation and physical harm,

animals need a way of clearly signaling to others that these activities are not serious,

but are merely intended "for fun." In primates, this communicative signal is the play

face, along with the breathy, panting laughter-like grunts that accompany it in some

species.

It is interesting to note that, by means of the play face, animals demonstrate an

ability to distinguish between reality and pretense, seriousness and play, which, as wehave seen in Chapters 1 and 5, are arguably the essence of humor. Thus, one can make

the case that a rudimentary form of humor in addition to laughter is evident even

in nonhuman animals. Interestingly, chimpanzees and gorillas that have been taughtto communicate by means of sign language have been observed to use language in

playful ways, such as punning, humorous insults, and incongruous word use, indicat-

ing a rudimentary sense of humor (see Gamble, 2001, for a review). Moreover,this humorous use of sign language in apes is typically accompanied by the play face,

providing further evidence for the close connection between linguistic humor and

play.

With our more highly developed cognitive and linguistic capacities, we humans

are able to extend these playful behaviors into the realm of concepts and ideas, cre-

ating nonserious, playful alternative realities that we share with one another through

language. Thus, humor in humans appears to have originated in social play, an ancient

mammalian emotion-behavior complex. Interestingly, comparable play faces occur in

many other mammals besides primates. For example, the canidae (dogs, wolves, and

foxes) and ursinae (bears) have a gape-mouthed play face in which the upper teeth

remain covered, which is accompanied by boisterous, frolicsome body movements and

rapid panting that is very reminiscent of the play panting of primates (van Hooff

and Preuschoft, 2003). Thus, the evolutionary origins of the relaxed open-mouth play

face, which in humans seems to have evolved into laughter, appear to go back manymillions of years.

Laughter and Smiling in Apes

The "laughter" that was observed by Darwin in chimpanzees is a staccato, gut-

tural, throaty panting sound associated with rapid and shallow breathing, which typ-

ically accompanies the relaxed open-mouth play face display. A similar pattern is seen

in many other primates, including gorillas, orangutans, and macaques, although the

vocalization is less pronounced in some species (van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). Amajor difference between the laughter of humans and chimpanzees is that, in chim-

panzee laughter, the breathing involves a rapid alternation between shallow inhala-

tions and exhalations, with single sounds being produced during each inhalation and

exhalation. In contrast, as we have seen, human laughter involves a series of multiple


"ha-ha-ha" sounds occurring during a single exhalation, with no vocalization duringthe intervening inhalations. Consequently, chimpanzee laughter sounds very differ-

ent from that of humans (Provine, 2000). Thus, although the two forms of laughter

appear to have the same evolutionary origins, they have diverged considerably in the

6 million or so years since our common ancestor with chimpanzees (Gervais and

Wilson, 2005; Owren and Bachorowski, 2001).

Chimp laughter and the play face are readily elicited during playful interactions

between human caretakers and juvenile chimpanzees in zoos. As with human infants,

tickling and peek-a-boo games containing an element of surprise, occurring in a

relaxed and trusting social atmosphere, are particularly effective elicitors of laughter

in chimps. Among conspecifics (i.e., members of the same species), play faces and the

voiced breathing laughter occur during boisterous rough-and-tumble play-wrestling

and play-chasing. The individuals alternate between chasing and being chased, coor-

dinating their activities by means of these play signals (van Hooff and Preuschoft,

2003). It is easy to see parallels in the boisterous laughter of human children during

rough-and-tumble play, and only a short step to the more intellectually-based play

with words and ideas in the laughter-evoking humor of human adults.

Although the play face and laughter in primates often occur in the context of play

fighting and "quasi-aggression" (Butovskaya and Kozintsev, 1996), comparativeresearch does not support the view that laughter originated in aggressive displays used

to intimidate and ridicule adversaries and signal one's superiority over them (cf.

Gruner, 1997). Instead, the research tends to support Darwin's view of laughter as an

original expression of happiness, joy, and high spirits associated with play (van Hooff

and Preuschoft, 2003). Drawing on his studies of the neural bases of play in labora-

tory rats, Panksepp (1998) provided considerable evidence that play and aggression

are mediated by different brain systems (see also D. P. Fry, 2005).

At the same time, though, researchers recognize that laughter, like play, tends to

be competitive and can be used in aggressive ways. Indeed, Panksepp (1998) describes

rough-and-tumble play in all mammal species as "joyful social exchange with a strong

competitive edge" (p. 284). During bouts of play, animals frequently pin each other

down, and one individual often emerges as the more dominant. However, for the

playful interactions to continue, this individual must also allow the less dominant

one to "win" quite frequently. In much the same way, teasing and other forms of

verbal play in humans appear to be ways of competing in a friendly way, and those

who tease others are required also to playfully accept the teasing directed at them byothers.

Interestingly, smiling likely has a somewhat different evolutionary origin than

laughter (van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). While laughter appears to be related to

the relaxed open-mouth display, smiling in humans seems to be homologous to

another facial pattern, the silent bared-teeth display, which is seen in primates as well

as many other species of mammals. In this display, the animal retracts its mouth

corners and lifts its lips, baring its teeth, while keeping its mouth more or less closed.

When shown by a lower-status individual, this display is a signal of fearful submis-

sion and appeasement; in a higher-status individual, it signals friendly reassurance and

6 THE PSYCHOB IOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

lack of hostile intent. Thus, rather than simply being a more subdued, low-intensity

form of laughter, smiling seems to have originated in a different signal altogether.

Functional differences between smiling and laughter are still apparent to some degreein humans, with smiling occurring more often than laughter in nonhumorous con-

texts such as friendly greeting, signaling of appeasement, and embarrassment.

Nonetheless, smiling and laughter, though apparently originating in different dis-

plays, seem to have moved quite closely together in humans, to the point where they

often represent different degrees of intensity of the same emotional state. Thus, a

smile may be an expression of mild amusement in response to a joke, whereas a laughcommunicates much greater enjoyment (Ruch, 1993). This is reflected in many lan-

guages, in which the word for smile is a diminutive of the word for laughter (e.g.,

French sourire and rire), I will return to the discussion of possible evolutionary origins

of smiling and laughter in a later section.

"Laughter" in Rats?

Thus far, we have considered evidence that the origins of human laughter go back

at least as far as the evolutionary ancestors that we share with our closest living rela-

tive, the chimpanzee, and, in the form of the play face, even to the common ances-

tors of all primates. Recently, biological psychologistJaak Panksepp and his colleagues

at Bowling Green State University have provided intriguing evidence that a form of

laughter may even exist in rats (Panksepp, 2000; Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2000, 2003).

They have found that laboratory rats produce a high-frequency (approximately50 kHz), ultrasonic chirping sound during social rough-and-tumble play and also

when being tickled by human handlers. Although humans are unable to hear these

sounds without the aid of specialized sound equipment, they are within the auditory

range in which rats communicate.

Rats seem to be most ticklish on the nape of the neck, although they also appar-

ently enjoy a "full body" tickle. When they have previously been tickled by a human

hand, they will eagerly approach that hand rather than one that has merely petted

them, chirping all the while. Like laughter among humans, this rat "laughter" appearsto be contagious, and young rats generally prefer to spend time with older animals

that produce more of this chirping sound as compared to those that do not. This

chirping "laughter" is also readily conditioned using both classical and operant

methods, and animals will run mazes and press levers for an opportunity to be tickled

and "laugh." Rat "laughter" can easily be amplified or reduced by selective genetic

breeding, indicating that it reflects a heritable emotional trait. As we will see in later

chapters, a comparable genetically based trait in humans may underlie our concept of

"sense of humor" (Ruch and Carrell, 1998).

Panksepp and Burgdorf (2003) have suggested that this chirping "laughter" arises

from organized "ludic" (from Greek ludos = play) brain circuits that form the "emo-

tional operating system" for the positive emotion of joy (or what I call mirth), which

is activated during social play, and which may be common to all mammals. They pos-tulated that play-related joy has an important social facilitation and bonding function

PATHOLOGICAL LAUGHTER

in mammals, promoting cooperative forms of social engagement and helpingto organize social dynamics. They suggested that rough-and-tumble play in rats,

accompanied by chirping "laughter," may provide a useful animal model for

researchers to investigate the brain structures mediating positive emotions relating to

play and laughter, in much the same way that other animal models have been used to

elucidate the brain mechanisms of negative emotions such as fear and anger

(Panksepp, 1998).

Research using this model has already begun to shed light on the neural bases of

positive playful emotion. For example, this research suggests an important role of

endorphins and other opioids, the morphine-like substances created in certain brain

sites. Low doses of morphine increase play in rats, whereas the opiate antagonistnaloxone (which inhibits the effect of opioids) decreases play (Panksepp, 1998). These

findings suggest that opioid systems may also be involved in mirthful humor and

laughter in humans. Human laughter is very different from ultrasonic chirping in rats,

and many researchers believe it is too much of a stretch to view the two as having anyreal evolutionary connection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005). Nonetheless, they may both

relate to homologous brain structures found in all mammals which have an importantsocial-emotional function and an ancient evolutionary origin relating to social play.

Thus, these animal studies suggest that the feelings of hilarity and mirth that we expe-

rience in humor originated in the exhilaration and joy of rough-and-tumble social

play that is a prominent activity of all mammals.

PATHOLOGICAL LAUGHTER

Brain disorders involving pathological laughter are well known in the neurolog-ical literature, and numerous cases have been reported since the late 1800s

(Duchowny, 1983; Forabosco, 1998; Poeck, 1985). The study of pathological laugh-

ter, in connection with knowledge of the underlying brain abnormalities, is one waythat neuroscientists have been able to make inferences about the brain sites that maybe involved in normal laughter. Although pathological laughter closely resembles

natural laughter, it is considered abnormal because of the presence of unusual motor

patterns, or a lack of accompanying pleasant and mirthful emotional experience, or

because it occurs in an inappropriate social context in the absence of humorous

stimuli.

Duchowny (1983) distinguished three major categories of pathological laughter,

each ofwhich has different clinical manifestations and anatomical substrates: (1) exces-

sive laughter, (2) forced laughter, and (3) gelastic epilepsy. Excessive laughter condi-

tions involve emotional lability, heightened feelings of mirth and euphoria, an inability

to inhibit laughter, and a lack of insight into the abnormality of the laughter. These

conditions most commonly occur in adulthood and tend to be associated with disor-

ders such as schizophrenia, mania, and dementia. These disorders appear to affect

parts of the brain involved in emotion production and regulation, including structures

in the limbic system and parts of the frontal lobes.

6 THE PSYCHOB1OLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

In forced laughter conditions, the second broad category of pathological laughter,

patients experience involuntary outbursts of explosive, self-sustained laughter, often

accompanied by autonomic disturbances of heart rate, vasomotor control, and sphinc-

ter tone. Although they may appear to others to be feeling genuinely amused, these

patients usually do not subjectively experience the positive emotion of mirth that nor-

mally accompanies laughter, but instead often experience it as unpleasant, embar-

rassing, and something to be endured. Many patients with this condition also exhibit

pathological crying, with fits of laughter merging into crying or vice versa. It is occa-

sionally even difficult to tell whether they are laughing or crying. This indicates that

some of the brain centers controlling laughter and crying are located very close

together (likely in the part of the brainstem called the pons), suggesting a close link

between the positive emotions of social play and the distressing emotions associated

with social separation (Panksepp, 1998).

Conditions involving forced laughter typically begin in adulthood and can result

from a variety of disorders, including degenerative brain conditions such as Parkin-

son's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), as well

as tumors and lesions in various parts of the brain due to cerebrovascular accidents

(strokes) and brain injury. In the condition called fou rire prodromique, uncontrolled

laughter lasting up to a half hour or even longer signals the onset of a stroke in the

brainstem. In some tragic cases, people have literally laughed themselves to death.

Pathological "forced laughter" conditions have been associated with lesions in manyareas of the brain, ranging from the frontal and temporal lobes of the cortex and the

pyramidal tracts to the ventral mesencephalon, the cerebellum, and the pons (Wildet al., 2003; Zeilig et al., 1996). In most of these cases, the effect of the lesions seems

to be chronic disinhibition of laughter-generating circuitry (i.e., an inability to inhibit

or modulate laughter normally), rather than an excitatory effect.

The third general category of pathological laughter, gelastic epilepsy (from Greek

gelos=laughter) involves relatively rare epileptic conditions in which the seizures pre-

dominantly take the form of bouts of laughter. These seizures are often accompanied

by motor convulsions, eye movement abnormalities, and autonomic disturbances.

During the seizures, patients typically (but not always) lose consciousness and are

therefore unaware of the laugh attack. In cases in which the patients remain conscious

during the seizure, some report a pleasant feeling of mirth, but others experience the

laughter as inappropriate and even unpleasant. The laughter typically lasts less than

a minute, but can be more prolonged when associated with complex partial seizures

(Arroyo et al., 1993). Gelastic epilepsy usually begins in childhood, and cases have

even been reported in newborn infants, demonstrating that the neural circuits for

laughter are fully developed at birth (Sher and Brown, 1976).

Brain-imaging studies have identified several brain regions that are associated

with gelastic seizures, most importantly the hypothalamus, temporal lobes, and medial

frontal lobe (Arroyo et al., 1993). The most common type of gelastic epilepsy, which

has also been studied most extensively, is associated with hypothalamic hamartomas,which consist ofnonmalignant abnormal tissue growth in the hypothalamus. Research

has shown that hypothalamic and pituitary hormones are released during these

LAUGHTER AND THE BRAIN

seizures, and it appears that the abnormal hypothalamic electrical activity has excita-

tory effects, spreading to areas in the neighboring limbic system and also to the brain-

stem to produce the psychophysiological manifestations of laughter (Wild et al.,

2003). These findings suggest that the hypothalamus likely has an important role in

normal laughter as well. As noted earlier, the hypothalamus is well-known as a control

center for the autonomic arousal associated with the fight-flight response, as well as

regulating a range of motivational states including hunger and sexual arousal (as psy-

chology professors frequently explain to their students, the hypothalamus is respon-sible for the four

u/'s": feeding, fighting, fleeing, and sexual intercourse).

LAUGHTER AND THE BRAIN

Studies of patients with brain lesions demonstrate that there are two separate

pathways in the brain that can lead to the production of smiling and laughter, one

voluntary and unemotional, and the other involuntary and emotional. Some patients

who have suffered a stroke or other brain injury, causing them to be unable to vol-

untarily move their facial muscles (volitional facial paresis), are nonetheless able to

smile and laugh normally when they find something funny (i.e., when they experience

the emotion of mirth). On the other hand, some patients with lesions of subcortical

nuclei in regions such as the basal ganglia (as in Parkinson's disease) are unable to

show spontaneous, emotional facial expressions when they are subjectively feeling

amused, but are able to smile voluntarily on command (Wild et al., 2003).

The voluntary facial movements likely originate in the motor strip on the cere-

bral cortex and arrive quite directly at the face via the corticospinal tracts of the

pyramidal motor system, whereas the involuntary, emotional movements arise from

subcortical nuclei and arrive at the face via the extrapyramidal system, involving manyemotion-related regions in the basal ganglia, limbic system, and brainstem (Frank and

Ekman, 1993). There is also evidence that voluntary control of laughter is mediated

by ventral areas of the mesencephalon and pons, whereas emotional control involves

dorsal areas of these same structures (Wild et al., 2003). These findings help to explain

the differences in facial expressions associated with genuine (Duchenne) and feigned

(non-Duchenne) smiling and laughter, discussed earlier.

Further evidence for separate neural substrates of emotional and voluntary

smiling and laughter was provided by a recent study that made use of positron emis-

sion tomography (PET), a brain-imaging technique (Iwase et al., 2002). The brains

of healthy participants were scanned while they were smiling, either spontaneously in

response to humorous videotapes or voluntarily while watching nonhumorous video-

tapes. The results showed different patterns of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)

during the two different types of facial expression. In particular, emotional smiling

led to greater activation of areas of the cortex involved in the processing and inte-

gration of visual information (bilateral occipital and occipitotemporal cortices and left

anterior temporal cortex), as well as cortical areas that are closely related to the limbic

system and are involved in emotional reward (ventromedial orbitofrontal cortex and

6 THE PSYCHOB1OLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

medial prefrontal cortex). In contrast, nonemotional voluntary facial movements

mimicking smiling led to greater activation of areas of the frontal cortex involved in

voluntary facial movement (facial area of the left primary motor strip and bilateral

supplementary motor area).

In addition to evidence that different brain circuits are involved in voluntary and

emotional forms of smiling and laughter, there is also evidence from cases involving

electrical brain stimulation that the cognitive aspects ofhumor can be dissociated from

the emotional and motoric components. When patients are undergoing brain surgeryfor treatment of epileptic seizures, surgeons commonly electrically stimulate various

areas of the exposed surface of the brain, in order to localize areas that should and

should not be removed. The patients remain conscious during this procedure. These

electrical probes occasionally trigger laughter in the patients, with or without accom-

panying feelings of mirth.

As one example, Fried and colleagues (1998) described a 16-year-old female

patient who consistently began to laugh whenever her brain was stimulated in a small

region of the supplementary motor area located on the left frontal lobe of the cortex.

The laughter was accompanied by subjective feelings of merriment and mirth in the

patient. Interestingly, each time she laughed due to electrical stimulation, the patient

attributed her laughter to various stimuli in her environment. For example, she would

say that she had laughed because of the funny appearance of a picture of a horse that

she happened to be looking at, or because the people in the room seemed to be behav-

ing in an amusing way. It is important to note that this patient's epilepsy never involved

gelastic seizures.

Although the exact brain mechanisms are not fully understood, this remarkable

case provides evidence of the way cognitive components of humor can be dissociated

from the emotional and motor components of mirth and laughter. In our normal expe-

rience, higher-level cognitive processes involved in the perception of humorous

incongruity cause stimulation of the limbic and brainstem regions involved in the

experience of mirth and production of laughter, but when those same mirthful feel-

ings and laughter behaviors are triggered artificially with an electrical probe, the brain

generates cognitive-perceptual incongruities to try to account for these emotional

experiences.

Based on evidence from cases of pathological laughter, electrical brain stimula-

tion, and animal studies, neuroscientists are beginning to piece together the circuits

of the brain that are involved in the positive emotion of mirth and the productionof laughter, although many of the details are still unknown (Arroyo et al., 1993;

MacLean, 1987; Parvizi et al., 2001; Wild et al., 2003). As with other emotional

systems (Panksepp, 1998), the structures and systems underlying laughter and mirth

are distributed throughout the brain, including regions in the neocortex, basal ganglia,

diencephalon, limbic system, and brainstem.

Parvizi and colleagues (2001) distinguished between emotion induction and

emotion effector sites involved in mirth and laughter. Normal emotional laughter is

initiated by perceptions of humorous incongruity or the recall of humorous memo-

ries, involving association areas of the cerebral cortex. These activate various emotion

induction sites located in the telencephalon (cerebral cortex and limbic system), which

TICKLING AS A STIMULUS FOR LAUGHTER

are involved in "turning on" the emotion of mirth, and likely include areas of the ven-

tromedial prefrontal cortex, basal temporal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, amyg-dala, and ventral striatum (part of the basal ganglia). I will discuss these brain bases

of cognitive and emotional aspects of humor in more detail in a later section describ-

ing neuroimaging studies.

When activated, the induction sites work on emotion effector (expression) sites,

including the motor and premotor areas of the cerebral cortex (initiating facial and

bodily movements), the hypothalamus (subserving autonomic responses such as

increased heart rate and flushing), thalamus, periaqueductal gray matter, reticular for-

mation, cranial nerve nuclei (controlling facial, laryngeal, and respiratory actions), and

parts of the brainstem, all of which are involved in smiling and laughter as the expres-sion of mirth. Most authors agree that there is likely a final common pathway for

laughter located in the brainstem (possibly in the dorsal area of the pons) that coor-

dinates the respiratory, laryngeal, and facial components of laughter (Wild et al.,

2003). Laughter is triggered at this site by input from the various effector sites, and

signals are sent out from here to the cranial nerves to activate the relevant muscles of

the body.In addition to excitatory input triggering laughter, inhibitory signals arriving in

the brainstem from various higher centers in the brain serve to inhibit inappropriate

laughter. Most researchers believe that the "forced laughter" type of pathological

laughter described earlier is due to damage involving the corticobulbar tract, a motor

pathway originating in the frontal cortex and terminating in cranial motor nuclei in

the pons and medulla, which results in a failure of these laughter-inhibition mecha-

nisms (Mendez, Nakawatase, and Brown, 1999). Parvizi and colleagues (2001) have

also hypothesized a possible role of the cerebellum in modulating the intensity and

duration of laughter. According to this view, the cerebellum receives information con-

cerning the current social-emotional context from the cortex and telencephalic struc-

tures and feeds this information back to various effector sites.

In this way, laughter may be inhibited or amplified, depending on its appropri-ateness to the social and emotional situation (e.g., whether one is at a party or a

funeral). However, when a stroke or other disease causes lesions to specific regions of

the cerebellum or to the relevant structures and pathways leading into or out of it,

this modulation does not take place, resulting in pathological laughter occurring in

socially and emotionally inappropriate contexts (Parvizi et al., 2001). In sum, althoughfurther research is needed to clarify the exact brain sites and pathways involved, it is

clear that laughter is a complex activity involving cognition, emotion, and motoric

behavior, and requiring the coordinated activation of a wide range of brain regions,

including parts of the cerebral cortex, the limbic system, and the brainstem.


Why do we laugh in response to being tickled? Why is it impossible to tickle

oneself? As we have seen, many juvenile animals tickle each other during play,

and tickling frequently stimulates laughter in human children and adults, as well as

6 THE PS YCHO B IO LOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

chimpanzees and other primates, and possibly even rats (Panksepp and Burgdorf,

2000). Provine (2004) suggested that the pleasurable, reciprocal give-and-take of tick-

ling may be viewed as a prototype of mammalian social play. The laughter associated

with tickling appears to be accompanied by a pleasurable feeling of mirth similar to

the emotion accompanying laughter when it is elicited by humor. However, tickling

can also be quite aversive, and it was reportedly even used as a form of torture in

medieval times. The social context is also important: tickling only produces laughter

in a safe and trusting environment (Harris, 1999).

Tickling and its curious relationship to humor and laughter raise a number of

intriguing questions that have been pondered by philosophers since the time of

Socrates and Aristotle. Although the first survey study of tickling and laughter was

conducted more than 100 years ago (Hall and Allin, 1897), more systematic empiri-

cal investigations of tickling have only begun quite recently.

Jaak Panksepp (2000) has argued that the merriment and laughter associated with

tickling involve the same emotional brain regions as humor-elicited laughter. Hence,he suggested that the study of brain processes involved in tickling-related "laughter"

in rats can tell us a good deal about the neural bases ofhumor and laughter in humans.

This view is similar to the one proposed much earlier by Charles Darwin (1872), who

suggested that tickling is essentially a humorous experience, eliciting laughter via

the same emotional mechanisms as those involved in humor. In other words, both

humor and tickling elicit the emotion of mirth, which in turn is expressed through

laughter. Since a similar idea was proposed at about the same time by a German

physiologist named Hecker, this view has come to be known as the Darwin-Hecker

Hypothesis.The current research evidence regarding this hypothesis is somewhat mixed,

however. Alan Fridlund and Jennifer Loftis (1990), at the University of California in

Santa Barbara, found some support for the hypothesis in a questionnaire study that

showed that the more individuals reported being very ticklish, the more they also

reported that they tend to laugh, giggle, and smile in response to jokes and other

forms of humor. Similarly, Christine Harris and Nicholas Christenfeld (1997), at the

University of California in San Diego, found a positive correlation between the degreeto which participants were actually observed to laugh and smile while they were beingtickled in the laboratory, and how much they laughed in response to a comedy film.

Both these studies indicate that people who are more ticklish also tend to laugh morein response to humor, suggesting a close relationship between tickling and humor as

elicitors of laughter, and thus providing support for the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis.

However, a second part of the study by Harris and Christenfeld failed to supportthe prediction that tickling and humor would have a "warm-up effect" on each other.

Participants were no more likely to laugh in response to being tickled after havingseen a comedy film than after watching a nonhumorous control film. Similarly, par-

ticipants laughed the same amount in response to a comedy film regardless ofwhether

or not they had previously been tickled. These results appear to cast doubt on the

idea that tickling and laughter both elicit the same positive emotion of mirth. If this

were the case, then when this emotion is elicited by means of tickling, it should sub-


sequently lead to greater laughter in response to humor, and vice versa. The authors

concluded that, although there seem to be relatively stable individual differences in

people's threshold for laughter regardless of whether it occurs in response to ticklingor to humor, the two types of laughter do not share a common emotional basis.

A more recent experiment by Christine Harris and Nancy Alvarado (2005) casts

further doubt on the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis. They used the FAGS to analyze the

facial expressions of participants who were laughing and smiling while being tickled,

and compared them with facial expressions of the same individuals while listening to

a comedy audiotape and while experiencing the pain of having their hand immersedin ice-cold water. Both tickling and comedy were associated with Duchenne smiles

and laughter, whereas these expressions did not occur during pain. However, tickling

was also associated with a greater proportion of non-Duchenne smiles along with a

number of facial movements indicating negative emotions and distress, which were

not seen in the comedy condition but were evident in the pain condition. The par-

ticipants also reported lower levels of amusement and higher levels of unpleasant feel-

ings, anxiety, and embarrassment in the tickling condition compared to the comedycondition. Furthermore, Duchenne smiles were correlated with self-reported unpleas-ant feelings as well as positive feelings in the tickling condition, but only with posi-

tive feelings in the comedy condition. Overall, these results suggested that the

laughter elicited by tickling is not as purely pleasant and enjoyable as that elicited byhumor.

The results of the latter two studies cast doubt on the Darwin-Hecker Hypoth-esis that humor and tickling both produce the same emotion of mirth, which is

expressed through laughter. The authors suggested that, whereas humor-elicited

laughter is mediated by a pleasant emotional state, laughter in response to tickling is

a more reflexlike, nonemotional response. If these conclusions are correct, then theycast doubt on views that posit a close connection among tickling, mirth, and humor,

including Panksepp's (2000) suggestion that tickling-elicited "laughter" in rats can be

used as an animal model to study mirth. This issue requires further investigation,

perhaps using brain-imaging techniques to compare the brain areas activated by

tickling and humor.

Why are we unable to tickle ourselves? Since the same cutaneous stimulation is

experienced very differently depending on whether it is produced by the self or byanother person, there must be some mechanism whereby the brain distinguishes

between these two sources of stimulation, canceling the ticklish effect when it is self-

produced. As Provine (2004) noted, in the absence of such a mechanism, people mightbe constantly tickling themselves accidentally! One study used fMRI to examine dif-

ferences in brain activity when participants tickled themselves on the hand comparedto when the tickling was done by an experimenter (Blakemore, Wolpert, and Frith,

1998). The results showed lower activity in the cerebellum when the tickling was self-

produced rather than externally produced, suggesting that the differentiation may take

place in this structure of the hindbrain. As we saw earlier, the cerebellum has also

been implicated in the modulation of laughter based on information about the social

context (Parvizi et al., 2001).


Although we cannot tickle ourselves, there is some evidence that it may be pos-

sible to be tickled by a nonhuman machine. Harris and Christenfeld (1999) led blind-

folded participants to believe that they would be tickled either by a "tickle machine"

or by a human hand, although in both conditions they were actually tickled in the

same way by a research assistant. The results showed that the subjects laughed just as

much when they believed they were being tickled by a machine as when they thought

they were being tickled by a person. Thus, laughter elicited by tickling does not seem

to be dependent on the belief that it is being done by a human being.

Although this research has begun to address the interesting phenomena of

tickling and laughter, there are still many questions that await further investigation.

In particular, further study of the brain areas involved in tickling versus humorshould help to answer the question of whether tickling elicits the same pleasurable

emotion as that produced by humor (as suggested by Panksepp, 2000), or whether it

is emotionally quite distinct from humor (as suggested by Harris, 1999). Further

investigations may also provide some clues to the evolutionary functions of ticklish

laughter. Did ticklishness evolve (as some theorists have suggested) as a means of

motivating individuals to develop combat skills to protect certain vulnerable areas of

the body from attack (Gregory, 1924; Harris, 1999)? Or is it a way of facilitating social

bonding in the context of joyful play, as others have proposed (Panksepp, 2000;

Provine, 2004)?

THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR

So far in this chapter, I have been focusing particularly on laughter and the

emotion of mirth that it expresses. In this section I will turn to research on the neural

underpinnings of the cognitive component of humor. If we think of the cognitive

processes involved in humor (discussed in Chapter 4) as the "software" or "mental

programs," here I am discussing the "hardware," the brain structures and circuits in

which these programs "run." Our understanding of the brain bases of humor comes

from several lines of research, including neuropsychological studies of deficits in

humor comprehension observed in patients with brain damage, EEG studies of brain-

wave activity during humor processing in normal individuals, and, more recently,

neuroimaging studies using fMRI to identify the brain regions that are activated when

people are exposed to humorous stimuli.

Humor and Brain Injury

Clinical observations of patients with right hemisphere damage (RHD) resulting

from strokes or other injury to the brain have long suggested that the right hemi-

sphere likely plays an important role in the processing of humor. Although these

patients typically have normal linguistic abilities, they often (but not always) display

marked changes in their personality, engaging in socially inappropriate behavior,

making humorous but often crude or offensive comments, and laughing inappropri-


ately (Brownell and Gardner, 1988). They are also often impaired in understandingthe discourse and behavior of others, failing to understand jokes told by other people,and missing the main point of a story. Although they understand the details of a story,

they seem to be unable to piece them together into a coherent interpretation. In addi-

tion, they often have difficulty extracting inferences and nuances from communica-

tion, misunderstanding sarcasm and indirect requests.

In contrast, patients with unilateral left hemisphere damage (LHD) typically do

not show the same personality changes and inappropriate social behavior. Although

they are often aphasic (i.e., they have marked language impairment due to the fact

that language functions are located in the left hemisphere in right-handed people),

they typically display a normal level of social awareness and understanding. In addi-

tion, to the extent allowed by their linguistic impairments, they are usually able to

extract the main point of a story or conversation, to draw inferences, and to combineelements of a story into a coherent whole. These clinical observations suggest that

RHD patients may have particular difficulty in understanding and appreciating at least

some forms of humor.

Amy Bihrle and her colleagues at the Boston University School of Medicine con-

ducted a study in which they compared RHD and LHD patients in their ability to

comprehend humor (Bihrle, Brownell, and Powelson, 1986). Due to the language

impairments common in LHD patients, it was important to use nonverbal humorstimuli to ensure that any differences between the groups were not simply due to dif-

ferences in language abilities. Accordingly, the humor stimuli used in the experimentwere a series of captionless comic strips, each containing four picture panels forminga narrative, with the final picture introducing a humorous ending much like the punchline of a verbal joke. The participants were presented with the first three panels of

each comic strip and were instructed to select which of two alternative pictures would

make the funniest ending. In each case, one of the alternatives was the original,

humorous "punch line" picture, whereas the other (less humorous) alternative varied

in the degree to which it contained incongruity (surprising elements) and resolution

(coherence with the preceding narrative). By examining the types of alternatives that

were chosen incorrectly by the participants, the researchers could identify particular

components of humor comprehension with which they had difficulties.

Overall, RHD patients performed significantly more poorly than did LHDpatients in selecting the correct joke ending, suggesting a particularly important role

of the right hemisphere in humor comprehension. More specifically, RHD patients

were found to be much more likely than LHD patients to select incorrect endingsthat contained an incongruous non sequitur but that did not show coherence with the

earlier part of the narrative. In other words, these incorrect endings contained incon-

gruity without resolution. For example, instead of the correct, funny ending, theywould often select a slapstick ending (e.g., a picture of someone slipping on a banana

peel) that did not have any relevance to the story. Thus, they seemed to be aware that

humor involves some sort of incongruity (and often some element of aggression), and

were able to recognize the presence of incongruity, but they had difficulty identify-

ing which incongruous endings made most sense in relation to the rest of the story.


This lack of relevance or coherence may account for the clinical observation that

RHD patients often engage in silly, socially inappropriate forms ofhumor (i.e., humorthat is not relevant to the social situation). On the other hand, when LHD patients

made errors, they were more likely than RHD patients to choose incorrect

endings that did not contain any incongruity, but simply provided an ordinary,

unsurprising completion to the story. Thus, they had some difficulty in recognizing

incongruity.

In a second part of their study, which examined only the RHD patients, Bihrle

and her colleagues (1986) employed a similar methodology using verbal jokes instead

of visual cartoons as humor stimuli, to determine whether a similar pattern of deficits

would be found with verbal humor. The results closely replicated the findings with

the nonverbal humor, with RHD patients frequently selecting incorrect joke punchlines that contained incongruity (often of a slapstick nature) but no coherence or res-

olution. Similar findings were also obtained in other studies by Brownell et al. (1983)

and by Wapner et al. (1981). Overall, these results suggested that the left hemisphereof the brain plays a role in perceiving incongruity, whereas the right hemisphereis important for making coherent sense of (i.e., resolving) the incongruity within

the social context (Bihrle, Brownell, and Gardner, 1988; Gillikin and Derks, 1991;

McGhee, 1983b).

More recent research suggests that part of the difficulty ofRHD patients in com-

prehending humor may have to do with deficits in "theory of mind," which is the

ability to attribute beliefs and intentions to other people in order to explain or predict

their behavior (Brownell and Stringfellow, 2000). Francesca Happe, Hiram Brownell,

and Ellen Winner (1999) tested humor comprehension in groups ofRHD and LHDpatients and non-brain-damaged control participants using nonverbal cartoons that

either did or did not require a sophisticated theory of mind in order to understand

and appreciate the humor fully. In the theory of mind cartoons, the humor dependedon what a character mistakenly thought or did not know. For example, in one cartoon

a man is playing a guitar and singing on a balcony of a high-rise apartment building,

while two women, one on the balcony above him and the other on the balcony below,

are listening with rapt attention, each apparently thinking that he is serenading her.

To understand the joke, one must be able to recognize differences in the knowledgeof each of the characters.

Participants were presented with pairs of cartoons, each pair comprising an orig-

inal humorous cartoon and a modified version in which the key humorous element

was replaced, and were asked to choose which of the two was funnier. The results

indicated that RHD patients, as compared with both the LHD patients and normal

control subjects, showed significantly more errors in identifying the humorous car-

toons involving theory of mind, but did not differ in their ability to identify the car-

toons that did not require theory of mind. In contrast, LHD patients did not differ

from non-brain-damaged controls on either type of cartoon.

Brownell and Stringfellow (2000) suggested that deficits in theory of mind, which

have also been found in RHD patients in other research, may account for the patternof humor comprehension deficits that were found in these patients in previous


research. In particular, they speculated that the resolution of humor (i.e., the ability

to "make sense" of incongruity), which has been found to be the aspect of humor in

which RHD patients have particular difficulty, often depends on a theory of mind.

Impairments in theory of mind, which is very important for appropriate social and

emotional functioning, may also help to account for the socially inappropriate forms

ofhumor often observed in these patients. Further research is needed to explore these

hypotheses more fully (see also Lyons and Fitzgerald, 2004, for a discussion of humorin autism and Asperger syndrome, which are thought to involve deficits in theory of

mind).

Although previous research indicated an important role of the right hemispherein humor comprehension, a study by Prathiba Shammi and Donald Stuss (1999), at

the University of Toronto, indicated that it is the right frontal lobe in particular that

seems to be most important. They tested patients with single focal brain damagerestricted to the frontal (right, left, or bilateral) or nonfrontal (right or left) brain

regions as well as age-matched normal controls. The participants were given several

humor tests to assess various aspects of humor comprehension and appreciation,

including both verbal and nonverbal forms of humor. In general, similar deficits in

humor comprehension that were previously found in RHD patients were found in

this study, but only for patients with right frontal lobe damage. In addition, the

patients with right frontal lesions reacted with less emotional responsiveness (smiling

and laughter) to all the humorous materials as compared to those with lesions in other

brain areas.

The authors noted that the frontal lobes, and particularly the right frontal lobe,

appear to be especially involved in the integration of cognition and emotion, due to

their connections to the limbic system as well as many other cortical regions. In addi-

tion to the integration of cognition and emotion, the frontal lobes have been shown

to play a crucial role in a number of cognitive functions that are likely important for

humor comprehension, including narrative discourse, abstract and nonliteral inter-

pretation, working memory, problem solving, and indirect forms of communication

such as irony, affective intonation, and sarcasm.

EEC Studies

In addition to studying deficits in humor comprehension in patients with brain

damage, researchers have investigated the brain areas involved in humor in healthy

subjects using EEG techniques, in which the electrical activity of the brain is meas-

ured by means of electrodes attached to the scalp. To determine whether the left or

right hemisphere is more active in humor, Sven Svebak (1982), then at the Univer-

sity of Bergen in Norway, measured the amount of discordant alpha wave activity

occurring at sites on the right and left occipital lobes of subjects while they watched

a comedy film. Those who laughed while watching the film (and therefore presum-

ably found it highly amusing) showed less discordant right-left alpha activity than did

those who did not laugh, suggesting coordinated activity of both hemispheres duringmirth.


To test whether this finding was simply due to respiratory effects of laughter

(perhaps causing differences in blood oxygen levels), a second study included condi-

tions in which subjects were instructed to hyperventilate and hypoventilate, as well as

humorous and nonhumorous film conditions. The results replicated the first studyand also demonstrated that the greater concordance in alpha activity across the hemi-

spheres associated with laughter was not simply caused by laughter-related changesin respiration. Overall, then, these studies suggested that both hemispheres of the

brain work together in a coordinated manner during humor and mirth rather than

one hemisphere being more active than the other.

In another EEG study of humor, Peter Derks and colleagues, at the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, examined event-related potentials (ERPs)associated with joke comprehension and appreciation (Derks et al., 1997). ERPs are

spikes in positively or negatively polarized brain wave activity occurring at very brief

intervals after an event, and have been found to indicate different types of informa-

tion processing. Using 2 1 EEG electrodes at various locations on the scalp, brain wave

activity was monitored while participants were presented with a series of verbal jokes

on a computer screen. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings were also taken on the

zygomatic muscle of the face to detect the presence or absence of smiling and laugh-

ter, indicating whether or not each joke was found amusing by the subject.

The results showed that all of the jokes, regardless of whether or not smiling or

laughter occurred, produced an increase in positive polarization of brain waves

with peak amplitude about 300 milliseconds (P300) following presentation of the

punch line. In addition, for the jokes that were associated with zygomatic muscle

activity, this was followed by a negative polarization with peak amplitude at about

400 milliseconds (N400). In contrast, this N400 wave did not occur after jokes that

did not elicit zygomatic activity, and were therefore presumably not found to be

amusing.Previous research has shown that P300 waves indicate the cognitive activity of

categorization, whereas N400 waves occur when categorization is disrupted due to an

incongruous or unexpected element, resulting in an extension of the categorization

process. In terms of the schema concepts discussed in Chapter 4, P300 following a

joke can be viewed as indicating the activation of a schema to make sense of the infor-

mation in the joke, whereas N400 indicates the disruption of this process and

the search for an alternative schema due to the detection of an incongruity ("frame-

shifting"). The fact that the N400 wave only occurred with jokes that were found to

be amusing suggests that these were the jokes that triggered the activation of an alter-

nate schema (corresponding to the "resolution" stage in two-stage theories of humor).As noted in Chapter 4, the simultaneous activation of two or more incompatibleschemas seems to be the hallmark of humor. Thus, this study provided EEG evidence

that corresponds quite well to the schema-based cognitive research discussed previ-

ously. In addition, consistent with the findings of Svebak (1982), this study found

similar levels of activity in both hemispheres of the brain, suggesting that both hemi-

spheres are involved in humor processing.

THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR 1{

A more recent EEG study by Seana Coulson and Marta Kutas (2001), at the Uni-

versity of California at San Diego, found the N400 wave following the presentationof humorous sentences but not nonhumorous sentences, replicating the finding of

Derks and colleagues (although the results were somewhat less consistent). Althoughthis study also found evidence of a positively polarized wave, this occurred at 500 to

700 milliseconds, considerably later than that observed in the study by Derks and col-

leagues. In addition, subjects who showed a high level of joke comprehension revealed

simultaneous positive and negative waves in different brain regions during this time

period.

These authors interpreted the positive polarities as reflecting the surprise com-

ponent of joke processing and the negative polarities as indicating the frame-shifting

needed to reestablish coherence. They argued that the fact that these occurred duringthe same time period indicates that the surprise and coherence components ofhumor

comprehension occur simultaneously in different brain regions, rather than followingthe temporally sequential pattern suggested by two-stage incongruity-resolutionmodels of humor (e.g., Suls, 1972). In summary, although there were some differences

between these two studies, both seem to provide evidence of positive and negative

polarity ERPs corresponding to incongruity and resolution components of humor

comprehension.

Brain-Imaging Studies

Recent advances in neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI have enabled

researchers to study the brain regions involved in a wide range of psychological

processes in normal individuals. fMRI uses high-powered, rapidly oscillating magneticfields to scan the brain and detect small changes in blood oxygenation levels (which

are indicative of changes in neuronal activity) in specific regions of the brain. Several

recent studies have employed this method to investigate humor. These investigations

have begun to map out the areas in the cortex involved in the cognitive comprehen-sion of humor as well as subcortical areas in the limbic system underlying the emo-

tional response of mirth.

In a study conducted at University College London, MRI was used to scan the

brains of participants while they listened to riddles containing either phonological

jokes (simple puns based on word sounds) or semantic jokes (containing more complex

incongruities based on semantic meaning), as well as a set of nonhumorous control

riddles (Goel and Dolan, 2001). After each item, the subjects were instructed to indi-

cate, by pressing a key, whether or not they found it amusing, and after the scan theyreviewed the jokes and rated them for funniness. Analyses of the brain areas that were

differentially activated by the two different types of jokes indicated that somewhat dif-

ferent networks were involved. In particular, the semantic jokes induced greater acti-

vation in regions of both the left and right temporal lobes that are involved in semantic

processing of language. In contrast, the phonological jokes induced greater activation

in areas of the left frontal lobe that have been implicated in the processing of speech


sounds, which have particular relevance in puns. Thus, different brain areas appearto be involved in the cognitive processing of different types of humor.

Besides these cognitive processes, this study also examined emotional componentsof humor by identifying brain areas that were differentially activated in response to

jokes that were rated as funny, as compared to those rated as unfunny. Funniness

ratings presumably reflect the degree to which each stimulus elicited mirth in the par-

ticipants. These analyses revealed that, regardless of joke type, funnier jokes were

associated with significantly greater activation of the medial ventral prefrontal cortex,

an area at the front of the brain with connections to the limbic system that plays an

important role in integrating cognitive and emotional processes. This was one of the

areas that was also found to be activated during emotional, as opposed to voluntary,

laughter in the study by Iwase and colleagues (2002) discussed previously.

Another fMRI study, conducted at Stanford University, found further evidence

for the involvement of emotion-related brain centers in humor, particularly the well-

known mesolimbic reward centers (Mobbs et al., 2003). While being scanned in an

MRI machine, participants viewed, in random order, 42 humorous cartoons and 42

nonhumorous control cartoons in which the humorous elements had been removed.

The data were analyzed to identify the brain regions that were differentially activated

in response to humorous versus nonhumorous cartoons. Several of the regions that

showed greater activation to humorous cartoons were in the left hemisphere of the

cerebral cortex, presumably involving cognitive processing of humorous information.

These included: (1) an area at the junction of the left temporal and occipital lobes

(which was suggested by the authors to be important in the perception of incongru-ous or surprising elements of humor); (2) an area of the left frontal lobe includingBroca's area (which is involved in semantic processing and integrating language and

long-term memory, and may therefore be important for the perception of coherence

or resolution of incongruity); and (3) the supplementary motor area of the left frontal

lobe (presumably reflecting motor aspects of expressive smiling and laughter). Thelatter area is the one found by Fried and colleagues (1998) to produce mirthful laugh-ter when electrically stimulated during surgery.

In addition to these cortical areas, this study found that humorous as comparedto nonhumorous cartoons also produced significantly greater activation in several sub-

cortical regions, including the anterior thalamus, ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens,ventral tegmental area, hypothalamus, and amygdala (Figure 5). These regions form

the core of the so-called mesolimbic reward network, a well-researched system that

employs dopamine as the major neurotransmitter, and which is implicated in a variety

of pleasurable, emotionally rewarding activities, including ingestion of mood-altering

drugs like heroin and alcohol, eating, sexual activity, listening to enjoyable music,

looking at photographs of attractive faces, and playing video games (for a review, see

Schultz, 2002). Thus, at a neurological level, the positive emotion elicited by humor

appears to be closely related to the pleasurable feelings associated with these other

activities. Of particular interest was the finding of a significant positive correlation

between the funniness ratings of individual cartoons and the degree of activation of

the nucleus accumbens, which has consistently been shown to be important in psy-

THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR 18

SupplementaryMotor Area

CingulateCortex

Frontal

Lobe

Prefrontal

Cortex

Basal

Ganglia

Nucleus

Accumbens

Amygdala

Hypothalamus

Parietal

Lobe

Occipital

Lobe

Thalamus

Rons

Cerebellum

Ventral

TegmentalArea

FIGURE 5 Brain regions involved in cognitive and emotional components of humor and

laughter.

chologically and pharmacologically driven rewards, suggesting that this structure is

particularly important in the pleasurable emotion associated with humor.

These patterns of cortical and subcortical regions activated by humorous versus

nonhumorous cartoons were replicated in three subsequent investigations, two by the

same team of researchers at Stanford University (Azim et al., 2005; Mobbs et al.,

2005), and one by researchers at the California Institute ofTechnology (K. K. Watson,

Matthews, and Allman, in press). One of these studies also examined sex differences

in brain responses to humor (Azim et al., 2005). Although women and men showed

similar overall patterns of brain activity, women revealed greater activation in the left

prefrontal cortex and in the mesolimbic regions including the nucleus accumbens,

suggesting that they enjoyed the cartoons more. Another of these studies examined

correlations between personality traits and brain activation in response to humor

(Mobbs et al., 2005). Participants with lower scores on a measure of neuroticism were

found to have higher levels of activation in the mesolimbic reward circuitry, includ-

ing the nucleus accumbens, suggesting that humor induces a stronger pleasure

response in more emotionally stable individuals. There was also greater humor-related

brain activation in extraverted as compared to introverted participants, indicating a

greater responsiveness to humor in these individuals as well. These findings suggesta biological basis to correlations that have been found between these personality traits

and various measures of sense of humor, which I will discuss in greater detail in

Chapter 7.

J4 6 THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

Taken together, these brain-imaging studies provide intriguing evidence con-

cerning the regions of the cerebral cortex that are involved in the cognitive process-

ing of various types of humor, as well as the cortical and subcortical (limbic) regions

mediating the pleasurable emotion of mirth that is induced by the perception of

humor. Although the studies of humor in patients with brain lesions seem to suggesta particularly important role of the right hemisphere, the brain-imaging research (like

the EEG studies) indicates that humor involves coordinated activities ofmany regionsin both hemispheres. As noted earlier, the brain lesion findings implicating right hemi-

sphere involvement in humor may reflect a particular role of that hemisphere in social

comprehension skills, such as theory of mind, which are important for understandinghumor within its social context. The brain-imaging studies suggest that the left hemi-

sphere is also very much involved in processing other aspects of humor.

In addition to research investigating brain regions involved in the comprehen-sion and enjoyment of jokes, some fMRI studies have looked at the brain areas that

are activated by the sound of laughter. As we saw in the Chapter 5, Provine (2000)

suggested that the contagiousness of laughter might be due to a hypothetical center

in the brain that responds selectively to the distinct sounds of laughter, inducing feel-

ings of mirth and causing the listener to laugh in turn. Gervais and Wilson (2005)

suggested that this laughter-response center may consist of specialized mirror

neurons, a type of neuron that is active not only when the individual is performing a

particular behavior but also when observing someone else perform the same behav-

ior (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). Research has shown that certain mirror neurons

also respond to the perception of emotions in others, inducing an empathic responsein the observer.

An fMRI study by Kerstin Sander and Henning Scheich (2001) found that lis-

tening both to laughter and to crying elicited strong activation in the amygdala, part

of the limbic system which, as we have seen, is an important center of emotion pro-

cessing that is activated by humor. A more recent fMRI investigation compared the

brain areas that were active when participants listened either to laughter, speech, or

nonvocal sounds (M. Meyer et al., 2005). While both speech and laughter producedactivation in auditory processing regions of the temporal lobes, the activation was

stronger in the right hemisphere with laughter and in the left hemisphere with speech.

Thus, the right hemisphere may be more strongly involved in responses to laughterif not to humor. This study also found that hearing laughter activated a section of the

motor area in the right frontal lobe that has previously been implicated in the vocal

expression of laughter, providing further evidence for a close link between laughter

reception and expression mechanisms. Further research is needed to determine

whether any of these areas can be identified as the laughter-mirroring center hypoth-esized by Provine (2000) and by Gervais and Wilson (2005).

Although only a small number offMRI investigations ofhumor and laughter have

been conducted as yet, they are beginning to provide intriguing information about

how the brain responds to humor. It is important to note, though, that the confined

space of an MRI machine does not permit researchers to study events in the brain

associated with the creation and perception of spontaneous forms of humor occur-

EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER 18!

ring in naturalistic social interactions, and this research is therefore limited to the

comprehension and enjoyment ofjokes and cartoons and responses to recorded laugh-ter. There are also some discrepancies in findings across these studies, likely due to

differences in the types of humor stimuli and experimental paradigms that were used.

Despite the limitations of the methodology, there is still much more to learn with this

approach, and this will likely continue to be an exciting area of research in coming

years.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

Several lines of evidence indicate that humor, mirth, and laughter are likely a

product of natural selection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Weisfeld, 1993). Humor and

laughter are universal in the human species, and laughter as an expression of mirth

emerges early in life. Infants begin to laugh in response to social stimuli by around

four months of age, and cases of gelastic epilepsy in newborns indicate that the mech-

anisms for laughter are present at birth (Sher and Brown, 1976). Additional evidence

that laughter is an innate behavior pattern, rather than being learned through imita-

tion, comes from the fact that children who are born blind and deaf laugh normally

(Goodenough, 1932). As we have seen, the evidence from studies of pathological

laughter, brain lesion studies, and brain-imaging research all suggest that there are

specific neural circuits for humor, mirth, and laughter. Moreover, the evidence of

laughter and play-related positive emotion in other animals further attests to their

evolutionary origins.

The animal research discussed earlier indicates that humor and laughter in

humans likely originated in social play. Thus, the adaptive functions of humor are

likely closely linked to the functions of play more generally. Many theorists have sug-

gested that the evolutionary benefits of play have to do with facilitating the develop-ment of various adaptive skills (Bateson, 2005; Panksepp, 1998). For example, some

have suggested that play helps individuals learn competitive and noncompetitive social

skills, such as behaviors that facilitate social bonding and cooperation or those that

promote social rank, leadership, and communication. Others have suggested nonso-

cial functions of play, such as increasing physical fitness, cognitive abilities, and cre-

ativity (P. K. Smith, 1982). Panksepp (1998) summarized research showing that adult

rats that have been deprived of play during the juvenile period, as compared to those

that have abundant play experience, are less effective in competitive encounters, are

less valued as social partners by others, are more fearful in social situations, and have

decrements in certain problem-solving abilities.

With the evolution of an enlarged cerebral cortex and increased capacity for lan-

guage, abstract thinking, self-awareness, theory of mind, and so on, humans have

extended the functions of play, mirth, and laughter by developing the ability to playwith ideas, words, and alternative realities by means of the ludic mental activity of

humor (Caron, 2002). Glenn Weisfeld (1993) proposed an evolutionary theory of the

adaptive functions of humor that emphasizes its continuity with play. Just as physical

6 THEPSYCHOBIOLOGYOFHUMORANDLAUGHTER

play in animals seems to provide them the opportunity to practice competitive and

noncompetitive social and physical survival skills in a nonthreatening context, humor,in this theory, is a means for humans to playfully practice important skills relating to

social cognition and interpersonal behavior. Through humorous anecdotes, teasing,

joking, and wordplay, humans are able to safely probe sensitive social issues concern-

ing such topics as sexuality, aggression, and social status; engage in playful competi-

tion; explore incongruous counterexamples, and so on. Thus, the adaptive functions

of humor as playful cognitive activity in a social context appear to be an extension of

the original functions of mammalian physical play into the realm of cognition.

Besides these benefits of the cognitive aspects of humor, part of its adaptive func-

tion may have to do with the positive emotion associated with it. According to Barbara

Fredrickson's (2001) Broaden-and-Build Theory, the adaptive functions of positive

emotions in general, including the humor-related emotion of mirth, is to broaden the

scope of the individual's focus of attention, allowing for more creative problem solving

and an increased range of behavioral response options, and to build physical, intellec-

tual, and social resources that are available to the individual for dealing with life's chal-

lenges. Evidence in support of this theory has been provided by recent research

conducted by Fredrickson and her colleagues on mirth and other positive emotions

(e.g., Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; Fredrickson et al., 2000). These ideas are also

consistent with the suggestion made by Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004)

that positive emotions, including humor-related mirth, play an important role in the

regulation of interpersonal relationships.

Although human laughter appears to have originated in play, it has evidently

undergone considerable evolutionary change since we diverged from our nearest

living relative, the chimpanzee, some 6 million years ago. As noted earlier, human

laughter sounds quite different from that of chimpanzees and other primates, and is

based on a different respiratory pattern. Thus, there appears to have been some adap-tive pressure on the formal characteristics of laughter in the evolutionary history of

our species. Matthew Gervais and David Wilson (2005) refer to these modifications

as a process of ritualization, whereby "a signal changes in structure so that it is more

prominent and unmistakable, and thus more readily perceptible" (p. 415).

When did this distinctively human form of laughter evolve? Robert Provine

(2000) argued that the divergence from apelike to humanlike laughter did not beginuntil after the development of bipedalism in our hominid ancestors (presumably the

australopithecines) some 4 million years ago, since walking on two legs freed the thorax

from the mechanical constraints of quadrupedal locomotion and allowed for the

greater control over respiration that is needed for human laughter (as well as lan-

guage). In turn, Gervais and Wilson (2005) suggested that the human form of laugh-ter was likely fully developed before the evolution of language (which is thought to

have begun with Homo habilis around 2 million years ago), since brain studies indicate

that laughter originates in subcortical, limbic, and brainstem areas shared with other

primates, and not in the more recently evolved neocortical areas in which languageis based. If this reasoning is correct, laughter must have taken its contemporary humanform sometime between 2 and 4 million years ago.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER 18'

Why did laughter in humans become ritualized in this way? Gervais and Wilson

(2005) proposed a theory drawing on contemporary views of laughter as an emotion-

induction mechanism. In particular, they suggested that the changes that occurred in

laughter were ones that made it increasingly effective at inducing the play-related pos-itive emotion of mirth in other members of a group, and thereby recruiting them to

engage in social play. In turn, social play and the positive emotion associated with it

presumably provided the various adaptive benefits discussed earlier. Individuals whowere more adept at becoming playful during times of safety and eliciting a playful

state in others through laughter would have benefited from increased fitness within

the group. In addition, groups composed of members who more frequently engagedin laughter would have a competitive advantage over other groups. (For an alterna-

tive, "selfish gene" theory of the evolution of laughter, see Owren and Bachorowski,

2001.)

Besides the play-related functions of humor, mirth, and laughter, over the course

of human evolution humor seems to have been adapted for a number of additional

functions by means of co-optation. A number of such additional functions have been

proposed by various theorists (see Vaid, 1999, for a review of evolutionary theories of

humor). For example, as we saw in Chapter 5, Mulkay (1988) suggested that humorwas co-opted as a mode of interpersonal communication. Along the same line, Richard

Alexander (1986) proposed an evolutionary theory of humor that emphasizes its

aggressive as well as its bonding aspects. Using the concepts of ostracism and indi-

rect reciprocity, he suggested that humor evolved as a way of favorably manipulatingone's status in a social group to improve one's access to resources for reproductivesuccess. Jokes and other disparaging forms of humor that make fun of members of an

out-group are a means of lowering their status and ostracizing them, while more affil-

iative forms of humor are a method of enhancing the status and fostering the cohe-

siveness of members of the in-group.

Geoffrey Miller (1997, 2000) has proposed a theory that focuses on the creativ-

ity of humor rather than its aggressiveness, suggesting that sexual selection played a

major role in its evolution. According to this view, a witty sense of humor, like lin-

guistic skills and creativity, is an indicator of superior intellectual aptitude, a geneti-

cally based trait that enhances one's ability to compete successfully for resources.

Thus, humor is a "fitness indicator," a signal for "good genes," increasing the indi-

vidual's perceived desirability as a potential mate. This theory accounts for the well-

replicated finding (discussed in Chapter 5) that a sense of humor is seen by people in

all cultures as one of the most desirable characteristics in a prospective mate, and par-

ticularly in women's choice of a male partner (Feingold, 1992). The preferred selec-

tion of partners with a sense of humor would ensure that, over time, genes involved

in the formation of brain systems underlying humor creation and appreciation would

proliferate in the population.Some recent studies have investigated hypotheses derived from Miller's sexual

selection theory. Eric Bressler and Sigal Balshine (2006) presented male and female

undergraduates photographs of two individuals (both either male or female) alongwith statements that were supposedly written by them. The statements from one of

38 6 THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER

each pair always contained humor, and the other did not. The participants were then

asked to rate these individuals on a number of perceived personality traits and to select

the one that was most desirable as a relationship partner. The results revealed that

female subjects preferred the humorous over the nonhumorous male as a potential

partner, whereas no such preference appeared when males were rating females or

when participants of either gender were rating individuals of the same sex. These

results were interpreted as providing support for Miller's theory that a sense ofhumorevolved as a means of attracting potential sexual partners, and particularly for males

to attract females.

Although research has shown that both men and women consider a sense of

humor to be a desirable characteristic in a prospective mate (Daniel et al., 1985;

Feingold, 1992), sexual selection theory would suggest that the two sexes may have

somewhat different ideas about what a desirable sense of humor is. Women may think

of a man with a good sense of humor as someone who makes them laugh, whereas

men may think of a woman with a sense of humor as someone who laughs at their

jokes. A recent study by Bressler and colleagues provided some support for this

hypothesis (Bressler, Martin, and Balshine, 2006). When presented with descriptions

of two individuals of the opposite sex and asked to choose which one was more attrac-

tive as a potential romantic partner, women were more likely to choose the one who

produced humor and made them laugh over the one who appreciated their humor,whereas men were more likely to choose the humor appreciator over the humor

producer.A number of other evolutionary theories have been proposed, each suggesting

somewhat different adaptive functions for humor. For example, humor and laughterhave been viewed as a "disabling mechanism" that prevents us from doing things that

would be counterproductive (Chafe, 1987), or as a form of "vocal grooming" which,

like physical grooming in primates, facilitates social bonding (Dunbar, 1996). Another

theory views laughter as a "false alarm," signaling to others that a stimulus or event

is unimportant and nonserious (Ramachandran, 1998). Although many of these the-

ories seem quite plausible, there is little research evidence to support most of them.

Like evolutionary psychology in general, evolutionary theories of humor need to

provide testable hypotheses making them potentially falsifiable so that they can be

more than merely "just so" stories (Gould, 2002). In the end, we may never have defin-

itive answers concerning the origins and adaptive functions of humor. Nonetheless,

these sorts of evolutionary theories are useful if they generate interesting new

hypotheses, stimulating new lines of research, and providing a better understandingof the phenomena.

CONCLUSION

The psychobiological study of humor, mirth, and laughter contributes interest-

ing new perspectives and insights, complementing the findings from other areas of

psychology. The biological approach to humor calls our attention particularly to the

emotional aspects of this phenomenon. The cognitive-perceptual component of

CONCLUSION 189

humor draws on many cortical brain circuits involved in information processing.

When humorous incongruity is perceived, a distinctive emotional state is elicited,

which I have referred to as mirth. Comparative studies of nonhuman animals suggestthat this emotion originates in play, a social activity that apparently serves important

adaptive functions. Recent brain studies, using animal models as well as neuroimag-

ing in humans, are just beginning to unravel the "emotional operating system" of

mirth, the specialized brain structures and circuits that underlie this emotion. These

studies have already implicated the well-known dopaminergic mesolimbic reward

centers, as well as the role of opiates and various neuropeptides. Further research in

this area, part of the growing field of affective neuroscience, will likely yield manyinteresting discoveries, not only about the brain circuits, but also the brain biochem-

istry of humor-related mirth and the potential interactions of these biochemicals with

other systems of the body, including the endocrine and immune systems.

The emotion of mirth typically also triggers the expressive behavior of laughter,

which communicates to others the presence of this emotional state in the individual.

Laughter is characterized by a distinctive pattern of vocalizations, respiration, and

facial expression. Although we often view laughter as the "cause" of changes in auto-

nomic arousal and brain biochemistry, it seems more appropriate to view all of these

as effects of the emotion of mirth. Laughter is essentially a social behavior, a fixed

action pattern that serves an interpersonal communication function. It has a conta-

gious effect, as the sound of laughter elicits feelings of mirth in others, causing them

to laugh as well.

The biological approach also draws attention to the evolutionary basis of humor.

A type of play-related laughter occurs in our closest ape relative, the chimpanzee, as

well as other primates, and it has even been suggested that homologues of laughter

may be seen in the play activities of rats, suggesting that the origins of mirth and

laughter may extend to our earliest mammalian ancestors. The play face and related

vocalizations in nonhuman animals signal a distinction between reality and pretense,

seriousness and fun, indicating a rudimentary conception of humor. With the expo-nential growth in the human cortex, and the associated increase in cognitive abilities

including language, abstract reasoning, self-awareness, and theory of mind, humans

have taken social play to a new level. By playing with language and ideas in the verbal

equivalent of competitive rough-and-tumble play, an activity that we call "humor," weactivate the same emotional brain circuits, autonomic arousal patterns, and behavioral

displays that are involved in actual physical play. Although play is largely a juvenile

activity in most animals, and rough-and-tumble play typically ends with childhood in

humans as well, play in the form of humor continues to be an important activity

throughout adulthood in humans, serving important social functions. By testing

hypotheses derived from various evolutionary theories of humor, research in the field

of evolutionary psychology may help to elucidate its adaptive functions, as well as take

research on humor into interesting new avenues. In sum, while research in the field

of psychobiology has made considerable progress in furthering our understanding of

the origins, nature, and biological bases of humor, mirth, and laughter, this promisesto be an exciting area of further research in the future.

Personality Approaches to the

Sense of Humor

ow would you describe one of yourfriends to another person? In addition to physical characteristics such as height and

hair color, you would likely mention various personality traits, describing his or her

level of friendliness, intelligence, competitiveness, or generosity. Chances are that youwould also mention his or her sense ofhumor, saying something like "She often makes

me laugh," or "He always sees the funny side of things." Thus, sense of humor maybe viewed as a personality trait (or, more accurately, a set of loosely related traits),

referring to consistent tendencies to perceive, enjoy, or create humor in one's daily

life.

Personality has to do with "an individual's habitual way of thinking, feeling, per-

ceiving, and reacting to the world" (Magnavita, 2002, p. 16). Personality traits are

hypothetical constructs that describe the ways people differ from one another and that

enable us to make predictions about how they will behave in various situations.

Although people's behavior is partly influenced by situational factors (you are more

likely to tell jokes at a party than at a funeral, for instance), individuals also display

some degree of consistency across situations (some people are more likely than others

to tell jokes in any particular situation).

A personality trait may be viewed as a dimension along which all people can be

placed, with some falling at the very high or low ends of the scale and others some-

where between the extremes. Personality psychologists seek to identify the various

traits that account for behavioral, cognitive, and affective differences among people,

191

7 PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR

to create reliable and valid measures for quantifying these traits, to explore the rela-

tionships among different traits and their ability to predict particular behaviors and

affects, and to investigate the biological, social, and psychological factors that account

for such individual differences.

Among the many traits that they have investigated, sense of humor has long been

a topic of interest to personality psychologists. Several of the most influential early

personality researchers and theorists, including such disparate thinkers as Hans

Eysenck (1942), Raymond Cattell (Cattell and Luborsky, 1947), Gordon Allport

(1961), and Sigmund Freud (1960 [1905]), investigated humor and found a place for

it in their theoretical systems (for a review, see R. A. Martin, 1998). In the past few

decades, the study of sense of humor as a personality trait has continued to be one of

the most active areas of research in the psychology of humor. Researchers have devel-

oped a number of tests for measuring different aspects or components of this

construct, and numerous studies have been conducted to investigate how these

humor-related traits correlate with other personality dimensions and predict relevant

behavior.

A particular interest in much of the recent research has been the role of sense of

humor in mental health and coping with stress. I will discuss the mental health impli-

cations of sense of humor in Chapter 9. In this chapter, I will focus on the concep-tualization and measurement of individual differences in humor and their association

with other personality dimensions. I will begin by exploring what we mean by sense

of humor, noting that this concept seems to comprise several different dimensions. I

will then discuss various approaches that researchers have taken in defining and mea-

suring this concept and will review research examining relationships between these

different humor measures and other personality traits. These approaches include:

humor appreciation measures, which assess the degree to which individuals enjoy dif-

ferent types of humor; self-report measures of various components of sense of humor;measures of people's ability to produce humor; and a q-sort technique for assessing

humor styles. I will then discuss factor analytic research examining interrelationships

among these different measurement approaches. Finally, I will review some research

investigating the personality traits of professional comedians.

WHAT IS SENSE OF HUMOR?

As we saw in Chapter 1,the concept of sense of humor developed in the nine-

teenth century. In its original meaning, it had an aesthetic connotation, referring to

a faculty or capacity for the perception or appreciation of humor, something like a

sense of beauty in art or an ear for music. At that time, the word humor also had a

narrower meaning than it has today, referring to a sympathetic form of amusementthat was linked to pathos, and was distinguished from wit, which was seen as more

aggressive and less socially desirable (Ruch, 1998a; Wickberg, 1998). The sense of

humor, as a character trait relating to this positive form of amusement, therefore also

took on a very socially desirable connotation, and came to be viewed as one of the

WHAT IS SENSE OF HUMOR?

most positive traits a person could have. Over the years, however, the meaning of

humor has broadened to cover all types of mirthful phenomena, and sense ofhumor has

also been extended to include a much wider range of humor-related traits, while

retaining its very positive connotation. Thus, a sense of humor has become a verydesirable but also a very poorly defined personality characteristic.

Most people think of themselves as having a good sense of humor. As the Amer-

ican essayist Frank Moore Colby wittily observed, "Men will confess to treason,

murder, arson, false teeth, or a wig. How many of them will own up to a lack of

humor?" (quoted in Andrews, 1993, p. 431). Gordon Allport (1961) found that, whenasked to assess their own sense of humor, 94 percent of research participants rated it

as either average or above average, with only 6 percent acknowledging a below-

average sense of humor (statistically, of course, 50 percent of the population are below

average). Herbert Lefcourt and I (1986) replicated this finding 25 years later in a studyof university students.

People generally associate a sense of humor with many desirable characteristics

beyond merely the tendency to create or enjoy humor. When research participants

were asked to rate the personality traits of a hypothetical person with a "well above

average sense of humor," as well as someone with a "below average sense of humor,"the high-humor person was rated as being significantly more friendly, pleasant, co-

operative, interesting, imaginative, creative, clever, admirable, intelligent, and per-

ceptive, and significantly less complaining, cold, mean, and passive (Cann and

Calhoun, 2001). At the same time, though, the high-humor person was also rated as

being more impulsive, boastful, and restless, and less mature, indicating that the sense

of humor concept does contain some less desirable characteristics as well. On the

major personality dimensions of the well-known Five Factor Model (FFM) of per-

sonality (McCrae and John, 1992), this same study found that people with an above

average sense of humor are perceived to be more emotionally stable, extraverted,

open to experience, and agreeable, but less conscientious than their low-humor

counterparts.

While everyone wants to believe they have a good sense of humor, which is

thought to be associated with many desirable qualities and characteristics, no one

seems to know exactly what a sense of humor is. Indeed, Cann and Calhoun (2001)

questioned whether this popular but nebulous concept has any consistent, specific ref-

erents at all, or whether it is simply a relatively nonspecific configuration of socially

desirable characteristics. As Louise Omwake (1939, p. 95) stated over 65 years ago,

the sense of humor "is so all-inclusive and highly prized that to say of another: 'He

has a grand sense of humor' is almost synonymous with: 'He is intelligent, he's a good

sport, and I like him immensely.'" If sense of humor is to be a scientifically useful

trait concept that can be measured reliably and validly in personality research, it obvi-

ously needs to be defined more carefully and precisely.

As I have noted in earlier chapters, humor is a complex phenomenon that touches

on many aspects of our daily lives. It is a type of mental play comprising social, cog-

nitive, emotional, and expressive components. It also takes many forms, including

canned jokes, spontaneous conversational witticisms, irony, puns, double entendres,


amusing anecdotes, and unintentionally fimny speech and actions. In addition, it

serves a wide variety of psychological functions, including the cognitive and social

benefits of the positive emotion of mirth; its many uses in interpersonal communica-

tion and influence, which can be both prosocial and aggressive; and its use as a tension-

relief and coping mechanism. People can be producers of humor, amusing others and

making them laugh, and they can also respond to the humor created by others. As a

personality trait or individual difference variable, the concept of sense of humor can

relate to any of these different components, forms, and functions of humor. Indeed,

researchers investigating this trait have taken many different approaches, each focus-

ing on somewhat different aspects of this complex phenomenon. Not surprisingly,

when sense of humor is conceptualized in these different ways, it tends to be associ-

ated with different dimensions of human behavior, cognition, and personality.

When we say that someone has a sense of humor, then, we may mean many dif-

ferent things. Personality psychologist Hans Eysenck (1972) pointed out three dif-

ferent possible meanings. First, saying someone has a sense of humor may mean that

he or she laughs at the same things that we do (qualitative meaning). Second, we maymean that the person laughs a great deal and is easily amused (quantitative meaning).

Third, we may mean that the person is the "life and soul of the party," telling funnystories and amusing other people (productive meaning). Eysenck went on to argue that

these three different "senses ofhumor" are not necessarily highly correlated with each

other.

Franz-Josef Hehl and Willibald Ruch (1985) expanded on Eysenck's list, notingthat individual differences in sense of humor may relate to variation in: (1) the ability

to comprehend jokes and other humorous stimuli (i.e., to "get" the joke); (2) the wayin which individuals express humor and mirth, both quantitatively and qualitatively;

(3) their ability to create humorous comments or perceptions; (4) their appreciation of

various types of jokes, cartoons, and other humorous materials; (5) the degree to which

they actively seek out sources that make them laugh, such as comedy movies and tel-

evision programs; (6) their memory for jokes or funny events in their own lives; and

(7) their tendency to use humor as a coping mechanism. Elisha Babad (1974) also dis-

tinguished between humor production (the ability to create humor) and reproduction

(the tendency to retell jokes that one has heard from others) and showed that the two

are uncorrelated. Yet another meaning commonly associated with sense of humor is

the idea of not taking oneself too seriously and the ability to laugh at one's own foibles

and weaknesses.

Sense of humor may therefore be variously conceptualized as a habitual behavior

pattern (tendency to laugh frequently, to tell jokes and amuse others with spontaneous

witticisms, to laugh at other people's humor productions), an ability (to create humor,to amuse others, to "get the joke," to remember jokes), a temperament trait (habitual

cheerfulness, playfulness), an aesthetic response (enjoyment of particular types of

humorous material), an attitude (positive attitude toward humor and humorous

people), a world view (bemused, nonserious outlook on life), or a coping strategy

or defense mechanism (tendency to maintain a humorous perspective in the face of

adversity).

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION

These different ways of conceptualizing sense of humor also lend themselves to

different measurement approaches in personality research. For example, humor

appreciation tests employing funniness ratings of jokes and cartoons may be used to

measure sense ofhumor when it is defined as an aesthetic response. If sense of humoris conceived as a habitual behavior pattern, however, it may be better to measure it

with self-report scales in which respondents rate the degree to which various state-

ments describe their typical humor-related behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and atti-

tudes. Alternatively, ratings obtained from peers or trained observers may be used

to quantify typical humor behaviors. On the other hand, the measurement of sense

of humor as a cognitive ability requires the use of maximal performance tests similar

to measures of intelligence or creativity, such as tasks in which participants' humor

productions are judged for funniness and originality. As we will see, each of these

different conceptualizations and measurement approaches has been employed bydifferent researchers.

In summary, sense of humor does not seem to be a unitary trait. Instead, it is best

conceived as a group of traits and abilities having to do with different components,

forms, and functions of humor. Some of these may be closely related to each other,

while others are likely to be quite distinct (R. A. Martin, 2003). For example, whereas

people with a good ability to create humor likely also tend to enjoy making other

people laugh, they do not necessarily also tend to use humor in coping with stress in

their daily lives. Researchers who wish to investigate hypotheses concerning sense of

humor need to be careful to identify which meaning of the construct is theoretically

most relevant to their research questions, and select the measurement approach that

is most appropriate.


Does the type ofhumor that a person finds most amusing tell us something about

his or her personality? This idea, which has been popular for centuries, is reflected

in the observation of the German poetJohann Wolfgang von Goethe that "men show

their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable" (quoted

by Ruch and Hehl, 1998, p. 109). Based on this idea, some clinicians have proposedthat asking psychotherapy patients to tell their favorite jokes might be a useful typeof projective test that could be analyzed to diagnose their problems and identify their

unresolved needs and conflicts (e.g., Strother, Barnett, and Apostolakos, 1954;

Zwerling, 1955).

This view is also the basis of a number of humor appreciation tests that have been

developed by personality researchers over the past 50 years to indirectly assess various

personality traits (e.g., Cattell and Tollefson, 1966). Indeed, most of the research on

individual differences in sense of humor prior to the 1980s was based on this humor

appreciation approach, and it continues to have some popularity today. In this

approach, research participants are presented with a series of jokes, cartoons,

and other humorous materials, and are asked to rate them on such dimensions as


funniness, enjoyment, and aversiveness. The humor stimuli are clustered into various

categories, either on a theoretical basis or by means of factor analysis, and separate

scores are computed by summing participants' ratings within each category. In this

approach, then, sense of humor is defined in terms of the degree to which the indi-

vidual enjoys particular types or categories of humor.

Theoretically-Based Content Approaches

In many of the early humor appreciation tests, the humor stimuli (primarily jokes

and cartoons) were categorized by the experimenters or other experts on the basis of

their content themes. These content categories were typically derived from particu-

lar theories of humor, and the measures were then used in research to test these the-

ories. For example, to test Freud's theory that repressed sexual and aggressive drives

are released through humor, jokes, and cartoons were typically classified into sexual,

aggressive, and nonsense (also referred to as innocent or nontendentious) categories.

As noted in Chapter 2, most of the research on psychoanalytic humor theory used

this approach. For example, the Mirth Response Test, developed byJacob Levine and

his colleagues (1951), consisted of 36 cartoons that were judged to tap various sex-

and aggression-related themes. Subjects' positive and negative responses to the car-

toons were thought to reveal their unconscious needs and unresolved conflicts

relating to these themes.

Research using the theoretically derived content-based humor appreciation

approach provided some evidence that people's level of enjoyment of various types of

jokes and cartoons is related to certain personality traits. For example, one early studyfound that participants who preferred jokes containing sexual and aggressive themes

over more intellectually-based humor had more aggressive themes in their Thematic

Apperception Test (TAT) stories, lower scores on a measure of intellectual values, less

psychological complexity, and higher scores on a measure of extraversion (Grziwokand Scodel, 1956). Some other studies also found positive correlations between extra-

version and liking of sexual humor (e.g., G. D. Wilson and Patterson, 1969).

In addition, participants with more conservative attitudes tended to prefer "safe"

types of humor (e.g., puns), whereas those endorsing more liberal views expressed

greater appreciation of overtly "libidinal" (e.g., sick and sexual) types of humor (G.

D. Wilson and Patterson, 1969). In general, more highly anxious individuals, as com-

pared to their less anxious counterparts, were found to enjoy humorous materials less,

although studies differed as to whether this effect occurred with all types of humor

(Hammes and Wiggins, 1962), or only with aggressive (J. Doris and Fierman, 1956)

or nonsense humor (Spiegel, Brodkin, and Keith-Spiegel, 1969). One study even

found some significant correlations between participants' funniness ratings of jokes

containing anal themes (i.e., jokes about defecation and flatulence) and measures of

"anal" personality traits such as obstinacy, negativism, hostility, cleanliness, and thrift

(O'Neill, Greenberg, and Fisher, 1992).

As in the psychoanalytically inspired research, humor appreciation tests were also

used in many of the studies investigating disparagement theories of humor (also


reviewed in Chapter 2). These tests typically comprised hostile humor that was cat-

egorized by the researchers according to the identity of the proponents and targets

of the jokes. Overall, these studies demonstrated that people tend to enjoy dispar-

agement humor that makes fun of people toward whom they have some antipathy (La

Fave et al., 1976; Wicker et al., 1980; Wolff et al., 1934; Zillmann and Cantor, 1972,

1976). As noted in Chapter 5, researchers have also used similar methods to study the

relationship between sexist attitudes and the enjoyment of sexist humor (e.g., Henkin

and Fish, 1986; Moore et al., 1987; Thomas and Esses, 2004).

In summary, a large number of studies have been conducted over the years with

humor appreciation tests containing theoretically derived, content-based categories

ofhumorous stimuli. Most of this research was conducted prior to the 1980s, althoughsome researchers have continued to employ this approach more recently to study sub-

jects' appreciation for particular types of humor, such as "sick" jokes (Herzog and

Bush, 1994; Herzog and Karafa, 1998), sexist humor (Greenwood and Isbell, 2002;

Ryan and Kanjorski, 1998), or "perspective-taking" humor (Lefcourt et al., 1997).

Although some interesting results have been obtained, this approach to classify-

ing humorous materials is subject to several criticisms (Ruch, 1992). Researchers

typically did not empirically evaluate the reliability and validity of their humor clas-

sifications, nor did they test the assumption of homogeneity of participants' responses

to humorous stimuli within a given category. As Eysenck (1972) observed, individu-

als often do not agree about which aspects of a joke or cartoon they find salient or

why they consider it to be funny or unfunny. The dimensions used by a researcher in

categorizing humorous stimuli may therefore not be relevant to the way the partici-

pants themselves perceive and respond to them. In this regard, an early study byLandis and Ross (1933) found no relation between subjects' classifications of a number

of jokes and the way these jokes had been classified by the experimenters, even when

the subjects were provided with the categories and their definitions.

In addition, because researchers using this approach selected particular humor-

ous stimuli to fit their theories, they were unable to determine whether their classi-

fication systems applied to all kinds of humor or merely to a subset. Finally, since

many of the humor appreciation tests were used in only one or two studies by indi-

vidual researchers, it is difficult to compare the results across different studies. Because

of these weaknesses, this approach has not led to much accumulation of knowledgeabout the nature of sense of humor.

Early Factor Analytic Studies

An alternative to the theoretically derived content-based method of categorizing

humor stimuli involves the use of factor analysis techniques. Rather than construct-

ing a test based on a particular theory, this approach seeks to build a theory on the

basis of empirically derived factor dimensions. Factor analysis is a statistical technique

for examining correlations among a large set of variables and identifying a smaller

number of dimensions (i.e., factors) that account for most of the variance. This

method has been used extensively by personality researchers to search for basic


personality traits, as in the FFM mentioned earlier. Over the years, some humorresearchers have also applied this technique to identify basic dimensions of humor

appreciation.

The general strategy in this approach is to obtain a large number of jokes, car-

toons, and other humorous stimuli that are considered to be representative of the

whole domain. These materials are then rated for funniness by a large number of

research participants. By factor-analyzing these ratings, researchers can determine the

implicit dimensions underlying people's appreciation of humor. Jokes and cartoons

whose ratings are highly correlated tend to cluster together in the same factor, whereas

those whose ratings are uncorrelated fall into different factors. By examining the char-

acteristics that are shared by the humorous stimuli that load on each factor, researchers

can identify the relevant dimensions that people implicitly use in their appraisals of

these stimuli.

Early factor analytic studies of humor appreciation were conducted by Hans

Eysenck, a well-known German-British personality researcher (reviewed by Nias,

1981). Noting that most theories ofhumor were developed by philosophers and based

on speculation, Eysenck sought to develop a theory based on empirical evidence. Todo this, he administered collections of verbal jokes, cartoons, and incongruous pho-

tographs to 16 participants (a very small sample by today's standards) who were asked

to rank-order them for funniness and to indicate which ones they enjoyed (Eysenck,

1942). Factor analyses of these data revealed a small general factor, indicating indi-

vidual differences in the degree to which people find any kind of humor to be funny.

In addition, the analyses revealed three specific factors or dimensions of humor, which

were labeled as (1) sexual versus nonsexual; (2) simple versus complex; and (3) per-

sonal versus impersonal.

Eysenck also examined the correlations between participants' ratings of humoron the three factors and their scores on a personality test. Sexual and simple jokes

were found to be preferred by extraverted individuals, while complex and nonsexual

jokes were preferred by introverts. These factor analytic results were generally repli-

cated by Eysenck (1943) in another study in which he administered five sets ofhumor-

ous stimuli, including jokes, cartoons, and funny limericks, to 100 adults representinga broad cross section of British society.

Based on these factor analytic findings, Eysenck (1942) proposed a theoretical

model of humor comprising three components or facets: cognitive (corresponding to

the complexity of the humor), conative (having to do with motivation or impulse

expression), and affective (relating to emotional aspects). He further combined the

conative and affective components under the term orectic, which has to do with the

"joyful consciousness of superior adaptation" associated with humor. He noted that

different traditional theories of humor focus on one or another of these humor facets.

The cognitive aspects are emphasized in incongruity theories of humor, the conative

in superiority/disparagement theories, and the affective in theories that stress the pos-itive emotions associated with laughter. According to Eysenck, Freud's theory com-

bined elements of all three components.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 19'

Eysenck also suggested that each of these components may be present in a given

joke to varying degrees, and individual differences in sense of humor may be con-

ceptualized in terms of the degree to which people enjoy humor containing these dif-

ferent elements. For example, he suggested that introverts are more likely to enjoyhumor in which the cognitive element predominates, whereas extraverts tend to prefer

humor in which the orectic aspects are paramount. Further support for this view was

provided by Wilson and Patterson (1969) who found a significant correlation between

participants' scores on a measure of extraversion and their funniness ratings of sexual

jokes. However, as we will see, other researchers have failed to replicate this finding

(Ruch, 1992). Overall, then, Eysenck was one of the first researchers who attemptedto develop a general theory of sense of humor based on factor analytic studies of

humor appreciation.

Raymond Cattell was another well-known pioneer of general personality research

who conducted early factor analytic studies of humor appreciation. Cattell and

Luborsky (1947) collected a set of 100 jokes that were considered to be representa-

tive of a broad range of humor and relatively free of cultural bias. A sample of 50 male

and 50 female undergraduate students were asked to rate the funniness of each joke

on two different occasions. Factor analyses revealed 1 3 clusters of jokes that appearedto have adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Subjects' scores on

each of these clusters were subsequently submitted to an additional factor analysis,

resulting in five fairly orthogonal (i.e., uncorrelated) factors. Based on the themes of

the jokes loading on each factor, the factors were tentatively labeled as: (1) good-natured self-assertion; (2) rebellious dominance; (3) easy going sensuality; (4) resigned

derision; and (5) urbane sophistication. The authors suggested that these clusters and

factors of humor appreciation might be related to the 12 to 16 general personality

factors identified by Cattell (1947) in his factor analyses of personality traits.

To test these ideas, in a subsequent study Luborsky and Cattell (1947) examined

the correlations between individuals' funniness scores on the 1 3 joke clusters and their

scores on 10 personality dimensions measured by the Guilford-Martin temperament

inventory. Six of these personality dimensions were found to be significantly corre-

lated with funniness ratings of various joke clusters, allowing for further refinement

of the cluster labels. These findings caused the authors to be quite optimistic about

the possibility ofusing these humor appreciation factors as a method of assessing more

general dimensions of personality. For example, one joke factor was found to be cor-

related with extraversion, and it was suggested that those jokes could be used as an

objective measure of this trait. These ideas were subsequently incorporated into the

IPAT Humor Test of Personality (Cattell and Tollefson, 1966), which was designedto assess humor preferences in each of these factors as a way of indirectly measuringmore general personality traits.

Despite the effort that went into developing the IPAT humor test, it had several

weaknesses and was never widely used. The reliabilities of the scales were quite low,

and the stability of the factor structure was questionable. Other researchers factor-

analyzed the same set of jokes and found an entirely different factor structure (Yarnold

X) 7 PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR

and Berkeley, 1954). Part of the problem seems to have been the use of a forced-

choice response format, resulting in the overextraction of numerous weak and unsta-

ble factors and suppression of stronger and more stable factors (Ruch, 1992). In

addition, very little research was conducted to evaluate the validity of the humor factor

scores as measures of more general personality traits. This test has been used in onlya few published studies to investigate such topics as personality traits of effective coun-

selors (Kush, 1997), the relation between humor appreciation and perceived physical

health (Carroll, 1990), and gender differences in humor appreciation (Carroll, 1989;

Hickson, 1977).

Ruch's Factor-Analytic Investigations

The early factor-analytic studies of humor appreciation were limited by small

sample sizes and a number of methodological weaknesses. In the early 1980s,

Willibald Ruch, an Austrian psychologist who is now at the University of Zurich in

Switzerland, set out to investigate the factor structure ofhumor appreciation in a more

thorough and systematic way (for a review, see Ruch, 1992). To ensure a compre-hensive representation of humor types, he began by amassing a set of 600 jokes and

cartoons that were obtained from a wide range of sources. Many were taken randomlyfrom popular magazines and joke books, while others were selected as representative

of the categories discussed in the humor literature and used in previous studies.

Over a series of factor-analytic studies conducted by Ruch and his colleagues, dif-

fering but overlapping sets of jokes and cartoons from this initial pool were adminis-

tered to a number of samples of male and female participants representing a broad

range of ages, social class, occupations, and health status (Hehl and Ruch, 1985;

McGhee, Ruch, and Hehl, 1990; Ruch, 1981, 1984, 1988; Ruch, McGhee, and Hehl,

1990). The materials were also translated into several languages, and studies were con-

ducted with samples in Austria, Germany, England, Turkey, France, Italy, and the

United States (Forabosco and Ruch, 1994; Ruch and Forabosco, 1996; Ruch and

Hehl, 1998; Ruch et al., 1991).

These factor-analytic studies revealed three stable and robust factors that appearto account for most of the variance in humor appreciation and are consistently found

across different humorous stimuli and in all populations studied. Interestingly, the first

two factors have to do with structural aspects of humor, rather than content themes.

The first of these, labeled incongruity-resolution humor (INC-RES), comprises jokes

and cartoons in which the incongruity introduced by the punch line can be resolved

by information available elsewhere in the joke. In these jokes, there is a sense ofhaving

"gotten the point" or understood the joke once it is resolved. Most of the "canned"

jokes that people relate in social settings, consisting of a setup and a punch line, fit

into this category. This type of humor is consistent with the two-stage incongruity-resolution models of humor discussed in Chapter 3 (e.g., Suls, 1972).

The second factor, labeled nonsense humor (NON), also relates to joke structure

rather than content. Jokes and cartoons in this category also contain a surprising or

incongruous element, but the incongruity is not fully resolved, giving the appearance

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 20

of making sense without actually doing so. This type of humor might be described as

bizarre, fanciful, off-the-wall, or zany. In this humor there is not a sense of "getting"

the joke, but rather one of enjoying a fanciful incongruity for its own sake. Many of

Gary Larsen's Far Side cartoons, as well as the zany humor of Monty Python 's Flying

Circus have been found to load on this factor (Ruch, 1992, 1999). Thus, contrary to

the assumption made by earlier researchers that humor should be categorized accord-

ing to its content or themes, Ruch's research demonstrated that people's humor

preferences have more to do with structure than with content.

The third factor, labeled sexual humor (SEX) is composed of jokes and cartoons

containing obvious sexual content themes, indicating that people tend to be fairly con-

sistent in the degree to which they enjoy or dislike sexual humor. Most of these sexual

humor materials were also found to have secondary loadings on one or the other of

the first two structural factors, depending on whether the humor contained resolved

or unresolved incongruity. An example of a SEX joke with a secondary ING-RES

loading is the following:

"So how was Scotland?" the father asked his daughter, who had just returned from a vacation. "Is

it true they all have bagpipes?" "Oh, that's just one of those silly stereotypes," replied the daughter.

"All the ones I met had quite a normal one."

The incongruity of the daughter's reply is resolved when we recognize that she mis-

understood her father's question about bagpipes to be referring to the appearance of

Scottish men's genitals. In contrast, a cartoon that loaded on the SEX factor with a

secondaryNON loading shows a hen lying on her back with her legs in the air, saying

to a rooster who is facing her, "Just once ... for a change." A hen desiring sex in the

"missionary position" is incongruous, and this incongruity cannot be resolved by

finding some additional information that enables one to "get the joke."

The SEX factor, which was the only one found by Ruch that had to do with

content, has also consistently been found in other factor-analytic studies (e.g.,

Eysenck, 1942; Herzog and Larwin, 1988). Although, as we have seen, many past

researchers have classified humor stimuli on a theoretical basis into various additional

content categories, such as aggressive, hostile, sexist, scatological, anal, or sick humor,

Ruch's investigations did not reveal any such content factors, even though he was

careful to include examples of all these kinds of humor among his stimuli. Instead,

humor containing these sorts of themes always loaded on one or the other of the two

structural factors. Thus, apart from sexual themes, individuals do not appear to

respond in any consistent way to jokes or cartoons based on the topic of the humor.

Instead, the degree to which people enjoy humor seems to be primarily influenced bywhether or not the incongruity is resolved, or "makes sense" in some way.

Besides factor-analyzing the humor stimuli, Ruch also investigated the factor

structure of participants' responses to humor. Using a number of different positive and

negative rating scales, Ruch found two response factors: (1) a positive enjoyment or

funniness factor, and (2) an aversiveness or rejection factor. These were only weakly

negatively correlated, indicating that individuals who find a particular joke to be very

funny do not necessarily rate it as low on aversiveness. For example, an individual


might view a sexist or racist joke as very funny but also very aversive. Thus, funni-

ness or enjoyment ratings alone do not adequately assess people's responses to humor;it is also important to evaluate their negative reactions. Furthermore, research by IgorGavanski (1986) indicated that these sorts of funniness and aversiveness ratings pri-

marily reflect people's cognitive evaluations of humor stimuli, rather than their emo-

tional response (i.e., the degree of mirth experienced), which is more strongly gauged

by the amount of smiling and laughter displayed. This partial dissociation between

cognitive and emotional responses to humor explains why many studies have found

only weak correlations between funniness ratings and the degree of smiling and

laughter.

Based on his factor-analytic studies, Ruch (1983) constructed the 3WD (Witz-

dimensioneri) humor test to assess individuals' ratings of funniness and aversiveness of

jokes and cartoons on the three identified factors. A 50-item version (form K) and

two parallel 3 5-item versions (forms A and B) are available. The jokes and cartoons

are printed in test booklets, and respondents are instructed to rate their funniness and

aversiveness on 6-point scales. The total funniness and aversiveness scores for each

factor have been shown to have good internal consistencies and test-retest reliabili-

ties. Scores on the three factors are moderately positively intercorrelated, indicating

that, to some degree, individuals who enjoy (or dislike) one type of humor also tend

to enjoy (or dislike) the others.

Personality Correlates of the 3WD Dimensions

Numerous studies have been conducted to examine correlations between scores

on the three factors of the 3WD humor test and a variety of personality traits

(reviewed in Ruch, 1992; Ruch and Hehl, 1998). The total funniness ratings across

the three factors have been found to be weakly correlated with extraversion, indicat-

ing that extraverts are somewhat more likely than introverts to enjoy all kinds of jokesand cartoons. In addition, the total aversiveness scores are weakly correlated with neu-

roticism, indicating that people who generally experience more negative emotions

such as anxiety, depression, or guilt tend to dislike all kinds of jokes and cartoons.

This is particularly true for neurotic individuals who are also introverted and who are

high on tender-mindedness, a construct relating to empathy, concern for others, tol-

erance, and democratic values. These findings are consistent with recent fMRI find-

ings (discussed in Chapter 6) that people who are high in extraversion and those whoare low in neuroticism show greater activation of the reward centers in the limbic

system of the brain on exposure to humorous cartoons (Mobbs et al., 2005). Inter-

estingly, total funniness scores on the 3WD have also been found to be negativelycorrelated with religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy, indicating that people whoare high in these types of conservative religious orientation are less likely to enjoy all

types of jokes and cartoons (Saroglou, 2003).

Much of Ruch's research has focused on personality traits having to do with

conservatism, tolerance of ambiguity, and sensation seeking in relation to the two

structure-related humor dimensions (NON and INC-RES). Since the appreciation of

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 20',

nonsense humor requires the individual to tolerate and even enjoy residual incon-

gruity, bizarreness, and absurdity, Ruch hypothesized that this type of humor would

be enjoyed by people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, a general sensation-

seeking orientation, and a preference for complex, novel, and unstructured stimuli.

On the other hand, since ING-RES humor is more unambiguous and uncomplicated,and generally involves the application of stereotypes to resolve the incongruity, the

enjoyment of this type of humor was predicted to be related to greater conservatism

and a general need for structured, uncomplicated, stable, unambiguous, and safe forms

of stimulation.

Research conducted by Ruch and others has provided a good deal of support for

these predictions. Measures of conservative and authoritarian personality traits and

attitudes have consistently been found to be positively correlated with funniness

ratings of INC-RES humor and with aversiveness ratings of NON humor (Hehland Ruch, 1990; Ruch, 1984; Ruch and Hehl, 1986a, 1986b). Thus, individuals who

espouse more conservative views (as measured by scales of intolerance of minorities,

militarism, religious fundamentalism, education to submission, traditional family ide-

ology, capitalism, economic values, and value orthodoxy) and authoritarian attitudes

(punitiveness, intolerance of ambiguity, law-and-order attitude) are more likely to

enjoy humor in which the incongruity is resolved and one can "get the joke," and to

dislike more bizarre or zany humor that does not seem to "make sense."

In one study, for example, Ruch and his colleagues asked participants to indicate

the degree to which they believe criminals should be punished for a range of crimes

such as fraud, robbery, rape, and murder (Ruch, Busse, and Hehl, 1996). As predicted,

the results revealed that the more these individuals enjoyed INC-RES humor, the

more severely they thought criminals should be punished for all types of crime (i.e.,

longer prison terms). If you are charged with a crime, you may wish to avoid a judgewho enjoys these kinds of jokes! Not surprisingly, since older people generally tend

to be more conservative than younger people, they also tend to enjoy INC-RES jokes

more (Ruch et al, 1990).

Sensation seeking is a personality trait involving a need for varied, novel, and

complex sensations and experiences, and a willingness to take risks. People who are

high on sensation seeking tend to enjoy having new and stimulating experiences

through art, music, travel, food, and even taking psychedelic drugs and living an

unconventional lifestyle. Research with the 3WD has shown that individuals with

high scores on measures of sensation seeking, as well as related constructs such

as venturesomeness and hedonism, enjoy nonsense humor significantly more than

incongruity-resolution humor (Hehl and Ruch, 1985, 1990; Ruch, 1988). EnjoymentofNON humor has also been found to be positively correlated with the openness to

experience dimension of the FFM (Ruch and Hehl, 1998). In addition, greater enjoy-ment ofNON humor is weakly related to higher intelligence, whereas enjoyment of

INC-RES humor tends to correlate with lower intelligence (Ruch, 1992).

Other studies have examined preferences for stimulus uncertainty and complex-

ity in relation to these structural factors of humor appreciation. In one study, partic-

ipants were asked to wear prism glasses that distort the normal visual field by flipping

14 7 PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR

it upside-down or left-to-right. Those with higher funniness ratings ofNON humor

kept the glasses on for a longer time and moved around more while wearing them,

indicating a greater willingness to experiment with this novel experience (Ruch and

Hehl, 1998). Enjoyment of NON humor was also shown to be significantly corre-

lated with preference for more complex and abstract forms of art, whereas enjoymentofINC-RES humor was related to preference for simpler, more representational types

of art. When research participants were instructed to arrange black and white plastic

squares into an aesthetically pleasing configuration, the productions of individuals

with greater appreciation of NON humor were judged to be more complex (Ruchand Hehl, 1998).

Overall, then, the two humor structures appear to partly represent the opposite

poles of some personality dimensions (e.g., simplicity-complexity), while also partly

relating to entirely different dimensions. In particular, INC-RES humor tends to

correlate with conservative and authoritarian attitudes and values, whereas NONhumor relates to variables involving imagination and fantasy. The relation between

conservative attitudes and values and the enjoyment of INC-RES humor is likely due

to the fact that stereotypical attitudes (e.g., about particular ethnic groups) need to

be invoked in order to resolve the incongruity of most of these kinds of jokes. Indi-

viduals with more conservative attitudes may have easier access to the information

required for resolving the incongruity and may also derive greater satisfaction from

the resulting support that is provided to their belief systems. On the other hand, the

stronger association of imagination and fantasy with enjoyment of NON humor is

likely explained by the fact that this type of humor involves a greater deviation from

reality and requires a willingness to accept improbable events and enter the world of

fantasy.

With regard to the content factor of sexual humor, research with the 3WD indi-

cates that enjoyment of this category of humor relates most strongly to the tough-minded versus tenderminded dimension of social attitudes. Toughmindedness is

characterized by independent, rational, self-sufficient, and unfanciful dispositions,

whereas tendermindedness has to do with empathy, concern for others, sentimental-

ity, tolerance, and democratic values. Regardless of the structure of the joke or

cartoon, toughminded individuals tend to show greater enjoyment of sexual humor,whereas tenderminded people tend to rate such humor as being more aversive (Ruchand Hehl, 1986b). Moreover, the more highly a given joke or cartoon loads on the

sexual factor, the stronger the correlation between its funniness ratings and the tough-mindedness versus tendermindedness dimension, indicating that the enjoyment of

sexual humor may be viewed as an indicator of toughminded attitudes (Ruch, 1992).

Some additional correlations have been found when SEX humor is divided into

NON and INC-RES types on the basis of its structure. For example, enjoyment of

sexual humor with the incongruity-resolution structure (INC-RES SEX) is correlated

positively with both conservatism and toughmindedness, resulting also in positive cor-

relations with variables such as authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, political

and economic conservatism, technical interests, and support for education toward sub-

missiveness, and negative correlations with aesthetic and social interests (Hehl and

Ruch, 1990; Ruch and Hehl, 1986b, 1987). Thus, enjoyment of sexual humor that is

SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS 2C

based on the incongruity-resolution structure (i.e., the most common kinds of sexual

jokes that people frequently tell in social situations) has little to do with sex per se, but

instead has to do with toughminded conservatism (authoritarianism). Interestingly,

since authoritarian individuals tend to have exaggerated concerns about "sexual

goings-on," their enjoyment of sexual humor of the incongruity-resolution type seems

to have more to do with rigid sexual preoccupations than with sexual permissivenessor pleasure (Ruch, 1992).

On the other hand, enjoyment of sexual humor that is based on the nonsense

structure (NON SEX), and is therefore more fanciful and bizarre, is unrelated to

conservative attitudes (although still related to toughmindedness), but is positively

correlated with scales of disinhibition, sensation seeking, hedonism, interest in sex,

and sexual libido, permissiveness, pleasure, and experience (Hehl and Ruch, 1990;

Ruch and Hehl, 1986b, 1988). Thus, it is only the appreciation of sexual humor of

the nonsense structure type that is related to positive sexual attitudes and experience.

In summary, Ruch's research with the 3WD has gone a long way in clarifying the

nature of individual differences in appreciation of jokes and cartoons. An important

finding is that people's enjoyment of these forms of humor is determined not so much

by the content but by the structure of the humor. In particular, individuals tend to

respond quite differently to jokes and cartoons in which the incongruity is resolved

and there is a sense of "getting the joke" versus those in which the incongruity is unre-

solved and which might be described as bizarre, fanciful, off-the-wall, or zany. Sexual

topics are the only content domain in humor for which individuals show consistent

response patterns.

This research also indicates that there is truth to the long-held view that the typeof jokes a person enjoys tells us something about his or her personality. However, the

particular personality traits associated with humor appreciation are not as self-evident

as one might expect. It may be surprising to many that people who enjoy the sorts of

jokes that are most commonly told in social contexts (i.e., incongruity-resolution

jokes) tend to be individuals with conservative values and attitudes. When such jokes

are of a sexual nature, their enjoyment also indicates toughminded, unsympathetic,

intolerant, and authoritarian attitudes. On the other hand, the enjoyment of the more

bizarre and fanciful nonsense humor (which is more likely to be encountered in car-

toons, literature, and films than in canned jokes) indicates greater openness, tolerance

for ambiguity, sensation seeking, intelligence, and enjoyment of novelty and com-

plexity. When this sort ofhumor contains sexual themes, its enjoyment indicates more

liberal (although still toughminded) attitudes and greater sexual permissiveness and

enjoyment.

SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS

The humor appreciation approach to conceptualizing and measuring sense of

humor, discussed in the previous section, focuses on canned jokes and cartoons which,

as I have pointed out in earlier chapters, comprise only a small fraction of the forms

ofhumor that people encounter in their daily lives. Moreover, this approach is limited

6 7 PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR

to people's enjoyment of these types of humor, and does not include their tendencyto create humor spontaneously and to amuse other people in their everyday lives.

Consequently, this approach to sense of humor, although it has produced many inter-

esting research findings, seems to address only a limited aspect of the many ways indi-

viduals may habitually differ from one another in regard to humor.

In the mid-1970s, researchers began to develop self-report measures of sense of

humor as an alternative to the humor appreciation approach, in order to investigate

some of these other humor-related individual-difference dimensions. This change in

methodology was associated with a shift in interest toward the everyday functions of

humor, including its role in interpersonal relationships, coping with stress, and mental

and physical health. These sorts of research questions required measures that assess

the degree to which people create, enjoy, and engage in humor in their daily lives,

and researchers with this perspective began to question whether humor appreciationmeasures were appropriate for these purposes (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986).

Although the humor appreciation approach provided a great deal of interesting

information about the personality traits of individuals who enjoy particular types of

humor (and indeed, Ruch was just beginning to conduct his more systematic research

on this topic around the same time), this approach did not seem to capture some of

the dimensions of sense of humor that were of interest to this new generation of

researchers. The fact that an individual rates jokes and cartoons as funny does not

necessarily mean that he or she engages in humor in daily life. Indeed, in a large mul-

titrait-multimethod study of sense of humor, Elisha Babad (1974) found no relation-

ship between individuals' scores on humor appreciation tests and either peer- or

self-ratings of their tendency to appreciate, produce, or reproduce humor in their

daily lives. In contrast, self-ratings were significantly correlated with peer-ratings of

these dimensions of sense of humor.

Thus, it appeared that self-report measures may be a more valid approach for

assessing certain aspects of sense of humor that are not tapped by humor apprecia-tion tests. An initial concern of researchers was that self-report humor tests might be

particularly susceptible to a social desirability bias. In other words, because a sense of

humor is such a desirable characteristic, research participants might not be objective

when rating their own sense of humor and might tend to overestimate it. Althoughthis may well occur when people are asked to rate their overall sense of humor, sub-

sequent research indicates that questions focusing on specific humor-related behav-

iors or attitudes do not seem to be strongly contaminated by social desirability

(Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Over the years, a number of different self-report scales

have been developed, each designed to measure a somewhat different component or

aspect of sense of humor. In the following sections, I will discuss a few of the more

widely used measures (for a more complete listing, see Ruch, 1998b).

Svebak's Sense of Humor Questionnaire

Norwegian psychologist Sven Svebak (1974a, 1974b), now at the Norwegian Uni-

versity of Science and Technology in Trondheim, was one of the first researchers to


break with the tradition of focusing on humor appreciation using funniness ratings of

jokes and cartoons, and initiated the measurement of sense ofhumor using self-report

questionnaires. In one of the earliest articles to specifically present a theory of sense

of humor as a personality trait, Svebak (1974b) observed that smooth social func-

tioning requires the construction of a shared, rational "social world." However, this

shared perspective on the world is somewhat arbitrary, and can also be constrainingand stifling. Sense of humor, like creativity, is "the ability to imagine . . . irrational

social worlds, and to behave according to such fantasies within the existing (real) social

frame in such a way that the latter is not brought into a state of collapse" (Svebak,

1974b, p. 99). Thus, "humor may be said to be a defense against the monotony of

culture more than against bodily displeasure" (p. 100).

Svebak suggested that individual differences in sense of humor involve variations

in three separate dimensions: (1) meta-message sensitivity, or the ability to take an irra-

tional, mirthful perspective on situations, seeing the social world as it might be rather

than as it is; (2) personal liking of humor and the humorous role; and (3) emotional per-

missiveness, or the tendency to laugh frequently in a wide range of situations. With

regard to the components of humor that I have discussed in earlier chapters, the first

of these dimensions relates primarily to the cognitive component, having to do with

a nonserious outlook and an ability to shift perspective in a creative manner. Thesecond dimension involves playful attitudes and a lack of defensiveness toward humor,and the third relates to the positive emotion of mirth and its expression through

laughter.

Svebak (1974a) constructed the Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) to

measure individual differences in each of the three dimensions posited in his theory,

with seven items for each dimension. Examples of the items in each subscale are as

follows: (1) metamessage sensitivity (M): "I can usually find something comical, witty,

or humorous in most situations"; (2) liking of humor (L): "It is my impression that

those who try to be funny really do it to hide their lack of self-confidence" (dis-

agreement with this statement results in higher scores on the scale); and (3) emotional

expressiveness (E): "If I find a situation very comical, I find it very hard to keep a

straight face even when nobody else seems to think it's funny." Individuals complet-

ing the measure are instructed to rate the degree to which each item is descriptive of

them, using a four-point Likert-type scale. Initial research revealed moderate corre-

lations between theM and L and theM and E dimensions, and no correlation between

L and E, indicating that the three dimensions were relatively independent of one

another.

Subsequent research using this measure indicated acceptable psychometric

properties (reliability and validity) for the M and L scales, but inadequate values for

the E scale (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). In studies employing this measure, there-

fore, researchers tended to use only the first two subscales. Support for the validity

of these two scales has been provided by significant correlations with peer ratings of

humor, as well as with other self-report humor tests (to be described below). Themeasure was used in research on stress-buffering effects of sense of humor, which I

will discuss in Chapter 9. Svebak (1996) later published a shorter, six-item version of


the SHQ (SHQ-6) which comprises three items each from the original M and Lscales. These six items were found to form a single factor in a factor analysis of SHQdata from nearly 1000 participants, and reliability analysis of the scale revealed a goodinternal consistency. The SHQ-6 has also been used in research on humor and stress

(Svebak, Gotestam, and Jensen, 2004), and Svebak (1996) recommended its use in

large-scale survey research in which a short measure of sense of humor is required.

The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire

Herbert Lefcourt and I developed the Situational Humor Response Question-

naire (SHRQ) at the University of Waterloo for use in our research on the stress-

moderating effects of sense ofhumor (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1984). In developingthis scale, we focused particularly on the emotional-expressive component of humor,that is, smiling and laughter. Thus, we defined sense of humor as the frequency with

which a person smiles, laughs, and otherwise displays amusement in a wide variety of

situations. In adopting this definition, we were making the assumption that overt

expressions of smiling and laughter are indicators of the emotion of mirth that is

elicited by the perception, creation, and enjoyment of humor in one's daily life.

The scale comprises 18 items that present participants with brief descriptions of

situations (e.g., "if you were eating in a restaurant with some friends and the waiter

accidentally spilled a drink on you"). These include both pleasant and unpleasant sit-

uations, ranging from specific and structured to general and unstructured, and from

relatively common to relatively unusual. For each item, respondents are asked to rate

the degree to which they would be likely to laugh in such a situation, using five

response options ranging from "I would not have been particularly amused" to "I

would have laughed heartily." In addition to the 18 situational items, the scale con-

tains three self-descriptive items relating to the frequency with which the participant

generally laughs and smiles in a wide range of situations.

The SHRQ has been found to have acceptable internal consistency and test-retest

reliability (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Males and females typically do not obtain dif-

ferent mean scores. The validity support for the SHRQ is quite extensive (see

Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; R. A. Martin, 1996). For example, individuals with higherscores on the SHRQ displayed higher frequency and duration of spontaneous laugh-ter during unstructured interviews and also recorded more frequent daily laughter in

three-day diaries (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). SHRQ scores also have been found

to correlate significantly with peer ratings of participants' frequency of laughter and

tendency to use humor in coping with stress. In addition, scores have correlated

significantly with the rated funniness of monologues created by participants in the

laboratory. Individuals with higher SHRQ scores were also found to make more spon-

taneously funny comments in a nonhumorous creativity task. The SHRQ is uncorre-

lated with measures of social desirability, providing evidence of discriminant validity

(Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). The measure has been used extensively in research onsense of humor in relation to mental and physical health, which will be discussed in

Chapters 9 and 10.


Lambert Deckers and Willibald Ruch (1992b) found no significant correlations

between the SHRQ and either the total score or the three factor scores on Ruch's

3WD measure of humor appreciation. Thus, as Lefcourt and I (1986) had hypothe-

sized, tests of humor appreciation employing respondents' ratings of the funniness or

aversiveness of jokes and cartoons represent a completely different construct from that

assessed by self-report humor measures such as the SHRQ. Individuals might rate

particular types of jokes and cartoons on the 3WD as being very humorous without

necessarily engaging in much humor in their daily lives.

On the other hand, the SHRQ has been found to be positively correlated with

extraversion (Ruch and Deckers, 1993), indicating that individuals who tend to laugh

readily in a range of situations (as indicated by high scores on the SHRQ) tend also

to be characterized by extraverted traits such as sociable, people-oriented, active,

talkative, optimistic, fun-loving, and joyful. In addition, the SHRQ is correlated

with sensation-seeking, a variable that is also associated with extraversion, indicatingthat individuals who tend to laugh frequently also tend to seek highly arousing

thrills, adventure, and varied experiences, and are easily bored (Deckers and Ruch,

1992a). Interestingly, social drinkers with higher scores on the SHRQ have also been

found to have higher rates of alcohol consumption (Lowe and Taylor, 1993). This

finding may also be a function of extraversion, since other research indicates that

extraverted individuals tend to drink more alcohol than do introverts (M. Cook et al.,

1998).

The SHRQ has been criticized for defining sense of humor purely in terms of

laughter frequency (Thorson, 1990). Indeed, as I have acknowledged, laughter can

occur without humor, and there can be humor without laughter (R. A. Martin, 1996).

Nonetheless, correlations between the SHRQ and various measures of personality and

well-being are comparable to those found with other self-report humor measures such

as the Coping Humor Scale (to be discussed next), suggesting that it assesses a more

general sense of humor trait than simply the tendency to laugh. A study by Loureyand McLachlan (2003) indicates that the SHRQ relates to perceptions of humor and

not merely laughter frequency. Moreover, research showing positive correlations

between participants' scores on the SHRQ and their humor production ability indi-

cates that it taps into humor creation and not just laughter responsiveness. This

broader construct validity of the measure may be due to the inclusion of a number of

items describing unpleasant or mildly stressful situations. Consequently, more than

merely assessing the frequency of laughter per se, the SHRQ appears to address the

tendency to maintain a humorous perspective when faced with unpleasant or poten-

tially embarrassing events.

A potentially more serious shortcoming of this measure is that the situations

described in the items are specific to university students' experiences (and even more

particularly those of Canadian students), and it is therefore less suitable for other pop-ulations. Furthermore, the situations described in the items have become somewhat

dated over time and may be difficult for many people to relate to today. For these

reasons, the SHRQ would likely benefit from a careful revision if it is to be used in

further research.


The Coping Humor Scale

The Coping Humor Scale (CHS) is another measure that Herbert Lefcourt and

I developed in the context of our research on sense of humor as a stress-moderating

personality trait (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983). Instead of attempting to assess a

broad sense of humor construct, this test was designed to measure more narrowly the

degree to which individuals report using humor in coping with stress. Thus, it focused

specifically on one particular function of humor. The CHS contains seven items that

are self-descriptive statements such as "I have often found that my problems have been

greatly reduced when I tried to find something funny in them" and "I can usually find

something to laugh or joke about even in trying situations." Research with the CHShas demonstrated marginally acceptable internal consistency and acceptable test-retest

reliability (R. A. Martin, 1996).

There is also considerable support for the construct validity of this scale (sum-

marized by Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; R. A. Martin, 1996). For example, scores on

the CHS have correlated significantly with peer ratings of individuals' tendency to

use humor to cope with stress and not take themselves too seriously. In addition, the

CHS was significantly correlated with the rated funniness of participants' humorous

monologues created while watching a stressful film, but not with the spontaneous fun-

niness of responses in a nonstressful creativity task, indicating that it specifically relates

to the production of humor in stressful situations. In another study, dental patients

with higher scores on the CHS were found to engage in significantly more joking and

laughter before undergoing dental surgery (Trice and Price-Greathouse, 1986).

The measure is generally uncorrelated with measures of social desirability,

thereby lending discriminant validity support. With regard to other personality traits,

the CHS has been found to be positively related to self-esteem, stability of self-

concept, realistic cognitive appraisals, optimism, sense of coherence, and extraversion,

and negatively related to dysfunctional attitudes and neuroticism (R. A. Martin, 1996).

Thus, it seems to primarily assess humor in an extraverted, emotionally stable type of

personality. Research using the CHS in relation to mental and physical health will be

discussed in more detail in Chapters 9 and 10. The CHS does have some psycho-metric limitations, however, particularly a relatively weak internal consistency

resulting from low item-total correlations of some items.

The Humor Styles Questionnaire

Many of the self-report humor scales were developed for research on humor in

relation to mental and physical health, and nearly all of these were based on the

assumption that a sense of humor is inherently beneficial to health and well-being.

However, as we have seen in earlier chapters of this book, humor does not alwaysseem to be used in psychologically beneficial ways. For example, the hostile, manip-

ulative, and coercive uses of humor that were discussed in Chapter 5 do not seem to

be very conducive to healthy interpersonal relationships. Indeed, it could be arguedthat humor is essentially neutral with regard to mental health: its implications for

health depend on how it is used by the individual in interacting with other people.


Since most humor measures do not distinguish between positive and negative uses of

humor, however, they are limited in their usefulness for studying potentially detri-

mental aspects.

Recently, my students and I have developed the Humor Styles Questionnaire

(HSQ), a measure designed to distinguish between potentially beneficial and detri-

mental humor styles (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). The focus of this measure is on the

functions for which people spontaneously use humor in their everyday lives, particu-

larly in the domains of social interaction and coping with life stress. Based on a review

of past theoretical and empirical literature, we hypothesized four main dimensions,

two of which were considered to be relatively healthy or adaptive (affiliative and self-

enhancing humor) and two relatively unhealthy and potentially detrimental (aggres-

sive and self-defeating humor).

Affiliative humor refers to the tendency to say funny things, to tell jokes, and to

engage in spontaneous witty banter, in order to amuse others, to facilitate relation-

ships, and to reduce interpersonal tensions (e.g., "I enjoy making people laugh"). This

is hypothesized to be an essentially nonhostile, tolerant use of humor that is affirm-

ing of self and others and presumably enhances interpersonal cohesiveness. Self-

enhancing humor refers to the tendency to maintain a humorous outlook on life even

when one is not with other people, to be frequently amused by the incongruities of

life, to maintain a humorous perspective even in the face of stress or adversity, and to

use humor in coping (e.g., "My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting

overly upset or depressed about things"). This humor style is closely related to the

construct assessed by the earlier Coping Humor Scale.

On the other hand, aggressive humor is the tendency to use humor for the purposeof criticizing or manipulating others, as in sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, or dis-

paragement humor, as well as the use of potentially offensive (e.g., racist or sexist)

forms of humor (e.g., "If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it").

It also includes the compulsive expression of humor even when it is socially inappro-

priate. This type of humor is viewed as a means of enhancing the self at the expenseof one's relationships with others.

Finally, self-defeating humor involves the use of excessively self-disparaging humor,

attempts to amuse others by doing or saying funny things at one's own expense, and

laughing along with others when being ridiculed or disparaged (e.g., "I often try to

make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weak-

nesses, blunders, or faults"). Thus, it deals with the use of humor to ingratiate oneself

with others, as discussed in Chapter 5. It also involves the use of humor as a form of

defensive denial, to hide one's underlying negative feelings or avoid dealing con-

structively with problems. This style of humor is seen as an attempt to gain the atten-

tion and approval of others at one's own expense.It is important to note that, although the HSQ assesses the way people "use"

humor in their everyday lives, no assumption was made that these uses are consciously

or strategically chosen. Instead, we assumed that people tend to engage in humor

quite spontaneously and are often unaware of its social or psychological functions in

a given situation. Thus, the items had to be worded quite carefully to address the


relevant functions indirectly, much like items on a self-report measure of defense

mechanisms.

The HSQ was developed using construct-based test construction procedures over

a series of studies with fairly large samples of participants ranging in age from 14 to

87 years (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). This methodology resulted in four stable factors

that were corroborated by means of confirmatory factor analysis. The final measure

contains four eight-item scales, each of which has demonstrated good internal

consistency. The HSQ has been translated into a number of languages and adminis-

tered to participants in various countries in North and South America, Europe, and

Asia, and the four-factor structure has been replicated in all cultures studied to date

(Chen and Martin, in press; Kazarian and Martin, 2004; in press; Saroglou and Scariot,

2002).

With regard to relationships among the scales themselves, moderate correlations

are typically found between self-enhancing and affiliative humor and between aggres-

sive and self-defeating humor, indicating that the two positive and the two negative

styles of humor, while conceptually and empirically distinguishable, tend to covary.

In addition, aggressive humor tends to be weakly correlated with both affiliative and

self-enhancing humor, suggesting that even positive styles ofhumor may include some

aggressive elements.

Research conducted to date has provided promising evidence for the construct

validity of each scale, as well as discriminant validity among the four scales (P. Doris,

2004; Kazarian and Martin, 2004; Kuiper et al., 2004; R. A. Martin et al., 2003;

Saroglou and Scariot, 2002). For example, scores on each of the scales have been found

to correlate significantly with peer ratings of the corresponding dimensions. The affil-

iative and self-enhancing humor scales also tend to be positively correlated with other

well-validated self-report humor measures such as the SHQ, SHRQ, and CHS,whereas the aggressive and self-defeating humor scales are generally unrelated to

other humor measures, indicating that these two presumably detrimental styles of

humor are not well-measured with other tests.

One self-report measure, the Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS;Thorson and Powell, 199 3 a) has been shown to be significantly positively correlated

with all four HSQ scales, indicating that this earlier humor test does not distinguish

between potentially beneficial and detrimental uses of humor, making it somewhat

less useful for investigating the role of humor in mental health. Not surprisingly,

scores on the self-enhancing humor scale tend to be quite strongly correlated with

scores on the conceptually similar Coping Humor Scale (Kuiper et al., 2004). Since

the self-enhancing humor scale has better reliability than the CHS, this newer

measure seems to be a better instrument for use in research on humor as a copingmechanism.

With regard to other personality and mood variables, the two measures of

"healthy" styles of humor are generally positively related to indicators of psycholog-ical health and well-being such as self-esteem, positive emotions, optimism, social

support, and intimacy; and negatively related to negative moods such as depressionand anxiety. In contrast, aggressive humor is positively correlated with measures of


hostility and aggression and negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction. Sim-

ilarly, self-defeating humor is positively related to measures of psychological distress

and dysfunction, including depression, anxiety, hostility, and psychiatric symptoms,and negatively related with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social support, and

relationship satisfaction. These findings support the view that the different humor

styles are differentially related to aspects of psychological well-being.

The four scales have also been found to correlate differentially with measures of

the FFM, which posits five major dimensions accounting for most of the variance in

personality traits (R. A. Martin et al., 2003; Saroglou and Scariot, 2002). Althoughthere were some differences in the patterns of correlations found among English-

speaking Canadian and French-speaking Belgian participants, extraversion was gen-

erally found to be positively correlated with affiliative, aggressive, and (more weakly)

self-enhancing humor, but unrelated to self-defeating humor. Neuroticism, on the

other hand, was unrelated to affiliative humor, negatively related to self-enhancing

humor, and positively related to both aggressive and self-defeating humor. In turn,

affiliative and self-enhancing humor were both positively correlated with openness to

experience, while aggressive and self-defeating humor were both negatively correlated

with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Thus, these four styles of humor appear to

be located in quite different regions of the personality space represented by the FFM,

suggesting that they represent disparate ways in which people with differing person-

ality traits express and experience humor in their everyday lives.

Some research has also begun to explore relationships between the HSQ scales

and measures of culture-related personality traits such as individualism and collec-

tivism (Kazarian and Martin, 2004; in press). In general, affiliative humor appears to

be related to the cultural orientation of collectivism (which emphasizes the interde-

pendence of individuals with respect to broader social groups), whereas aggressive

humor is more related to individualism (which views individual needs as taking prece-

dence over group needs). Further cross-cultural research is needed to determine

whether the HSQ dimensions reflect different styles of humor found in people from

different cultures. For example, Western cultures, which tend to be more individual-

istic, might be expected to have more aggressive humor styles, whereas people from

more collectivistic Eastern cultures may be higher on affiliative humor.

Interestingly, although negligible differences are found between men and womenon the two presumably positive styles ofhumor, males tend to have significantly higher

scores than females on the two presumably detrimental humor styles, suggesting that

men tend to use negative forms of humor more than women do (cf. Crawford and

Gressley, 1991). Older participants have been found to obtain lower scores than

younger people on both affiliative and aggressive humor, suggesting that people mayhave a decreasing tendency to engage in these more extraverted types of humor as

they age. Among women, self-enhancing humor was found to be higher for older than

younger individuals, suggesting an increase in this coping style of humor with greater

age and life experience. Longitudinal research is needed, however, to test whether

these observed age differences are due to developmental changes over the lifespan or

to cohort effects.


Overall, then, the HSQ assesses dimensions ofhumor that are not tapped by pre-vious tests and, in particular, it is the first self-report measure to assess social and psy-

chological functions of humor that are less desirable and potentially detrimental to

well-being. In Chapter 9, 1 will discuss additional research that has used this measure

in the study of humor and mental health.

The State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory

When we say that someone has a good sense of humor, we may mean that the

person tends to maintain a cheerful mood and a nonserious, playful attitude much of

the time, even in situations where other people might be likely to become distressed.

This way of conceptualizing sense of humor, which focuses on the emotional com-

ponent and the playful, nonserious character of humor, was proposed some time ago

by Howard Leventhal and Martin Safer (1977). More recently, Willibald Ruch and

his colleagues have adopted this perspective in their investigations of trait cheerful-

ness, which they view as the temperamental basis of sense of humor (for a review, see

Ruch and Kohler, 1998).

In this view, individual differences in sense of humor are based on presumably

innate, habitual differences in cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood. While each

of these can be viewed as temporary states or moods, individuals are assumed to differ

in traitlike ways with regard to how consistently they experience these states. Trait

cheerfulness is an affective trait or temperament involving a prevalence of cheerful

mood and mirth, a generally good-humored interaction style, a tendency to smile and

laugh easily, and a composed view of adverse life circumstances. Trait seriousness (versus

playfulness) is a habitual frame of mind or mental attitude toward the world, com-

prising a tendency to perceive even everyday events as important, a tendency to planahead and set long-range goals, a preference for activities that have a rational purpose,and a sober, straightforward communication style that avoids exaggeration and irony.

In Michael Apter's (2001) terminology (discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5), this

relates to the degree to which people tend to be in the telic (serious, goal-oriented)versus the paratelic (playful, activity-oriented) mode. Individuals who would typically

be viewed as having a sense of humor would be those who are low on this trait. Trait

bad mood is an affective disposition involving a prevalence of sad, despondent, and dis-

tressed moods; a generally ill-humored interaction style (sullen, grumpy, grouchy);and a negative response to cheerfulness-evoking situations and people. Again, high-humor people would tend to be low on this dimension.

Ruch and his colleagues constructed the trait form of the State-Trait Cheerful-

ness Inventory (STCI-T) to assess individual differences in habitual cheerfulness,

seriousness, and bad mood (Ruch, Kohler, and Van Thriel, 1996). These scales have

been shown to have good internal consistencies and test-retest reliabilities. Factor

analyses on data obtained in several countries have consistently confirmed the exis-

tence of the three distinct factors. Cheerfulness tends to be weakly negatively corre-

lated with seriousness and moderately negatively correlated with bad mood, while

seriousness and bad mood are weakly positively correlated. A state version of the State-


Trait-Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI-S) was also constructed to assess the presence of

each of the three mood states over shorter periods of time (Ruch, Kohler, and van

Thriel, 1997).

A number of studies have demonstrated good validity for the STCI-T. Scores on

each of the three trait scales were significantly correlated with peer ratings of the same

dimensions (Ruch, Kohler, et al., 1996) and with the corresponding mood states as

measured by the STCI-S (Ruch and Kohler, 1999). Studies have also shown that indi-

viduals with high scores on the trait cheerfulness scale, as compared to those with low

scores, are less likely to develop a depressed mood and serious frame of mind when

they are exposed to negative mood induction procedures such as reading a melan-

choly story or engaging in a series of boring tasks in a depressing, windowless roomwith black walls and poor lighting (Ruch and Kohler, 1998, 1999).

Similarly, individuals with high trait cheerfulness scores, as compared to those

with low scores, are also more likely to smile and laugh (showing the Duchenne

display of genuine mirth) and to have enhanced feelings of state cheerfulness in mirth-

inducing situations, such as inhalation of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), exposure to a

clowning experimenter, or the sudden, unexpected appearance of a jack-in-the-box

(Ruch, 1997; Ruch and Kohler, 1998). These findings provide support for the valid-

ity of trait cheerfulness as representing a habitually high threshold for negative moodsand a low threshold for mirth, laughter, and positive moods in general.

To examine the validity of the trait seriousness scale of the STCI-T, participants

in one study were instructed to create humorous captions for a series of cartoons. As

predicted, individuals with lower scores on trait seriousness (indicating greater habit-

ual playfulness) were found to create a greater number of humorous captions, and

their captions were rated as more funny, witty, and original (Ruch and Kohler, 1998).

On Ruch's 3WD measure of humor appreciation, individuals with low (as opposedto high) seriousness scores tended to prefer nonsense over incongruity-resolution

humor. In addition, higher seriousness scores were related to higher aversiveness

ratings for all types of humor, indicating that more serious individuals are more likely

to reject all forms ofhumor (Ruch and Kohler, 1998). These findings provided supportfor (low) trait seriousness as a general attitude or frame of mind characterized by a

more playful perspective and a greater receptiveness to humor.

Studies have also examined the relationships between the STCI-T scales and

more general personality dimensions such as the FFM, and models of positive and

negative affectivity (Ruch and Kohler, 1998). Overall, cheerfulness was associated with

extraversion/energy, agreeableness/friendliness, emotional stability/low neuroticism,

and positive affectivity. Thus high trait cheerfulness is a characteristic of agreeable,

stable, extraverted types. Bad mood, in contrast, showed the opposite pattern of cor-

relations, but with a stronger contribution of neuroticism and negative affectivity and

a weaker loading on extraversion and positive affectivity. Thus, bad mood is charac-

teristic of disagreeable, neurotic introverts. Finally, seriousness was consistently asso-

ciated with low psychoticism/conscientiousness and introversion.

In summary, this temperament-based approach provides an interesting perspec-

tive on the meaning of sense of humor. In this view, individuals who are typically


described as having a "good sense of humor" tend to be people who are habitually in

a cheerful mood, who maintain a playful, nonserious attitude toward life, and who are

infrequently in a bad, grouchy mood. Different styles of humor may have to do with

different combinations of the three traits. For example, an acerbic, caustic sense of

humor might involve low seriousness, moderate cheerfulness, and high bad mood. Onthe other hand, people who are easily amused at others' humor but not very witty

themselves might be high on cheerfulness, low on bad mood, and relatively high on

seriousness.

Since trait cheerfulness has been shown to be a predictor of robustness of posi-

tive mood in experimental studies, this construct also seems to be a potentially useful

way of conceptualizing sense of humor as a trait that contributes to coping with stress

and enhancing psychological health. As Ruch and Kohler (1998, p. 228) suggested,

individuals who are high on trait cheerfulness may "have a better 'psychological

immune system,' protecting them against the negative impact of the annoyances and

mishaps they meet in everyday life and enabling them to maintain good humor under

adversity." This measure would therefore likely be useful in research on physical and

mental health benefits of humor, particularly in the context of humor as resilience to

psychosocial stress.

SENSE OF HUMOR AS AN ABILITY

Some conceptualizations of sense of humor view it as a form of creative ability

or aptitude. In this approach, the ability to perceive humorous incongruities, to create

jokes, funny stories, and other humorous productions, and to make other people laughis viewed as a skill, like the ability to draw a picture or solve a math problem. Indi-

viduals who are gifted with this creative talent are presumably the amateur comedi-

ans who keep their friends "in stitches" and are the "life of the party," while the

supremely talented few may become professional comedians and comedy writers. This

conception of sense of humor seems to be most appropriately measured by means of

ability tests that assess maximal performance, rather than the typical behavior assessed

by self-report scales. This approach has been taken by a few researchers over the years.

Alan Feingold, a researcher affiliated with Yale University, has long been a pro-

ponent of the view of sense of humor as a kind of aptitude. Feingold (1982, 1983)

developed tests of humor perceptiveness and humor achievement comprising ques-tions about joke knowledge, in which participants were required to complete famous

jokes (e.g., "Take my wife, "; Answer: "please") and identify the names of

comedians associated with particular jokes (e.g., "I get no respect" linked with RodneyDangerfield). Respondents' scores on these tests were based on the number of ques-tions that were answered correctly. Scores on this test were positively correlated with

intelligence, and (not surprisingly) individuals with high scores were found to be avid

viewers of comedy television shows.

Feingold and Mazzella (1991) expanded on this earlier work, developing addi-

tional tests to assess two proposed types of verbal humor ability or wittiness: (1)

SENSE OF HUMOR AS AN ABILITY

memoryfor humor, which they hypothesized to be akin to crystallized intelligence; and

(2) humor cognition, thought to be comparable to fluid intelligence. Memory for humorwas assessed by tests of humor information and joke knowledge (similar to Feingold'searlier measure of humor perceptiveness), while humor cognition was measured with

tests of humor reasoning and joke comprehension. Again, these were all maximal per-formance tests in which scores were based on the number of correct answers. Their

research findings revealed significant correlations between traditional measures of

verbal intelligence and the tests of humor cognition, whereas memory for humor was

not strongly related to intelligence. Humor reasoning was also correlated with the

Remote Associates Test, a measure of creative thinking.In a subsequent article, Feingold and Mazzella (1993) suggested that verbal wit-

tiness may be viewed as a multidimensional construct composed of the mental ability

dimension of humor cognition, in combination with social and temperamental factors

influencing humor motivation and communication. Overall, then, Feingold and

Mazzella's conceptualization of humor ability appears to be a fairly narrow construct,

relating particularly to individuals' familiarity with well-known jokes and popularcomedians. However, the psychometric properties of their measures are not

well-established, and they have not gained wide acceptance among other humorresearchers.

Other humor production tests have been developed by researchers over the yearsto examine individual differences in the ability to create or produce humor. Most of

these were designed for use in individual studies, and they have typically not been

standardized. In this approach, research participants are typically presented with

various stimuli, such as caption-removed cartoons or silent movies, and are instructed

to make up as many funny responses as they can to go with these stimuli. The fun-

niness of their responses is then rated by the experimenters, yielding a score for humor

production ability. Some of these studies have examined the relationship between

humor production ability and various other personality traits.

For example, Robert Turner (1980) examined the association between humor pro-duction ability and self-monitoring, a personality trait having to do with the degreeto which individuals are sensitive to environmental cues of social appropriateness and

regulate their behavior accordingly. Humor ability was assessed in two ways. In one

of these, participants were asked to make up witty captions to go with a series of car-

toons in which the original captions had been removed. In the second method, par-

ticipants were seated at a table on which were placed a number of miscellaneous

objects, such as a tennis shoe, a wristwatch, and a box of crayons. The participants

were instructed to create a three-minute comedy monologue, describing these

objects in a funny way, after being given only 30 seconds to collect their thoughts.

In both methods, the participants' humorous productions were rated by judges for

wittiness.

The results revealed that, as predicted, individuals with higher scores on a

measure of self-monitoring, as compared to those with lower scores, produced

responses that were rated as significantly more witty on both humor production tests.

The author suggested that the tendency to attend to and respond to social cues and


the reactions of others enables people who are high in self-monitoring to develop skill

in creating and delivering humor successfully over the course of their lives. In con-

trast, those who are low in self-monitoring, because they do not attend as much to

the responses of others, do not learn as readily from those responses and therefore

do not develop as much skill at producing humor. Consistent with these results, other

research has found a positive correlation between self-monitoring and a self-report

measure of the tendency to initiate humor in social interactions (Bell, McGhee, and

Duffey, 1986). Thus, self-monitoring may be an important personality trait that con-

tributes to the development of the ability to produce humor. These findings suggestthat humor creativity should be viewed as a type of social skill (see also Dewitte and

Verguts, 2001, for a similar selectionist account of sense of humor development).Other researchers have used similar humor creation tests to examine the as-

sociation between humor production ability and more general forms of creativity

(reviewed by O'Quin and Derks, 1997). As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of the-

orists have noted close connections between humor and creativity, pointing out that

both involve divergent thinking, incongruity, surprise, and novelty (Ferris, 1972;

Murdock and Ganim, 1993; Treadwell, 1970; Wicker, 1985; Ziv, 1980). For example,Arthur Koestler (1964) considered humor, scientific discovery, and artistic creation

(all of which involve the process of bisociation) to be forms of creativity.

Researchers investigating these hypotheses have assessed participants' humor cre-

ation abilities by rating the funniness of their responses to a variety of tasks, includ-

ing creating humorous captions for cartoons (Babad, 1974; Brodzinsky and Rubien,

1976; Ziv, 1980) and TAT cards (Day and Langevin, 1969), generating witty word

associations (Hauck and Thomas, 1972), and making up funny presidential campaign

slogans (Clabby, 1980). In general, these studies revealed positive but moderate cor-

relations between these funniness ratings and a variety of measures of creativity,

including the Remote Associates Test (in which participants must identify a conceptthat links two seemingly unrelated words) and tests in which participants are asked to

come up with unusual uses of a common object such as a brick. A meta-analysis of

this research found an average correlation of .34 between humor production ability

and creativity (O'Quin and Derks, 1997). These authors concluded that, although cre-

ativity and humor production do involve similar mental processes, they are nonethe-

less distinct. Whereas humorous productions are typically creative, individuals can be

creative without being funny.

How is humor production ability related to other dimensions of sense of humor?

As noted earlier, research has generally indicated little or no relation between mea-

sures of humor production and humor appreciation (Babad, 1974; Kohler and Ruch,

1996; Koppel and Sechrest, 1970), indicating that, somewhat surprisingly, people whoare able to create humor successfully do not necessarily enjoy or respond with amuse-

ment to various kinds of jokes and cartoons. On the other hand, some positive but

generally weak correlations have been found between measures of humor production

ability and several self-report humor scales, including the SHRQ, CHS, Metames-

sage Sensitivity scale of the SHQ, and (low) Seriousness scale of the STCI-T (Kohlerand Ruch, 1996; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; Ruch, Kohler, et al, 1996).

SENSE OF HUMOR AS STYLES OF HUMOROUS CONDUCT

The use of ability measures of humor production is an approach that merits

further investigation. In addition to self-monitoring and creativity, this method wouldseem to be useful for evaluating other variables besides self-monitoring and creativ-

ity (e.g., intelligence, tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity) that contribute to humor

production.

SENSE OF HUMOR AS STYLES OF HUMOROUS CONDUCT

When we say that someone has a sense of humor, we are implying that we have

frequently observed this person engaging in a variety of humor-related behaviors in

a range of situations. For example, we may have seen the person telling jokes or

humorous stories, making spontaneous witty comments, laughing at a variety of

amusing events, and so on. Based on these observations, we may also characterize the

person's overall humorous style in various ways, using descriptors such as reflective,

sarcastic, irreverent, or sardonic. Thus, the concept of sense of humor may be viewed

as a socially constructed description of a person's typical humor-related conduct. In

other words, sense of humor may be seen as a set of labels that we ascribe to peoplebased on our observations during our interactions with them. What are the basic

dimensions by which people classify different styles of humor in everyday conduct,

and what are the patterns of humor-related behaviors that are associated with these

different dimensions? These questions have been the focus of research conducted byKenneth Craik and his colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley (Craik,

Lampert, and Nelson, 1996; Craik and Ware, 1998).

To investigate the dimensions of humor based on observable behavior, Craik and

his colleagues began by developing a list of 100 descriptive statements that were

intended to capture all the important facets of the domain of everyday humorousconduct (described by Craik and Ware, 1998). Examples of these descriptions include:

"Uses good-natured jests to put others at ease," "Has difficulty controlling the

urge to laugh in solemn situations," "Enjoys witticisms which are intellectually chal-

lenging," and "Spoils jokes by laughing before finishing them." Each of these state-

ments was then printed on a separate card to form the Humorous Behavior Q-sort

Deck (HBQD). Subsequent research with this card deck employed the standard q-

sort technique, in which observers are asked to sort the cards into a series of piles

indicating the degree to which each description is characteristic of a particular target

person.In one study (described by Craik and Ware, 1998), participants were asked to sort

the cards to describe a hypothetical person with a high sense of humor. Correlations

among the card sorts of the participants revealed high agreement in the popular con-

ception of what it means for someone to have a sense of humor. Averaging across the

card sorts of all the subjects, the researchers were able to identify the humor styles

that are generally perceived to be positively and negatively associated with this

concept, as well as those that are seen as irrelevant. Positively related to the conceptof sense of humor were items having to do with good-natured wittiness, a cheerful


disposition, and skillful humor ability. Negatively associated items were those involv-

ing aggressive, inappropriate, and maladroit attempts at humor. Enjoyment of intel-

lectual wit and ethnic jokes, along with ingratiating uses of humor, were deemed to

be irrelevant to the concept. Thus, this method proved useful for exploring the waymost people typically conceptualize a sense of humor.

In another study (also described by Craik and Ware, 1998), participants were

asked to sort the HBQD cards to describe the styles ofhumor of several famous come-

dians, such as David Letterman, Woody Allen, and Bill Cosby. Again, good interrater

reliabilities were found. Correlations between the mean card sorts for different come-

dians were then computed to examine the degree to which their humor styles were

perceived to be similar. For example, Arsenio Hall and Whoopi Goldberg were per-

ceived to have fairly similar styles, whereas Woody Allen and Lucille Ball were less

similar. This ^-sort method could be a potentially useful technique for researchers to

use in quantifying the degree of similarity in humor styles between pairs of individ-

uals, such as married couples or friends. These similarity scores could then be corre-

lated with other relationship variables such as marital satisfaction or the long-term

stability of the friendships to examine the degree to which similarity in humor styles

contributes to these aspects of relationships.

To identify the major dimensions underlying different perceived styles of humor,a large number of university students were asked to describe their own humor styles

using the HBQD, and these card sorts were then subjected to factor analysis (Craik

et al., 1996). This analysis revealed five bipolar factors, which were labeled as: (1)

socially warm versus cold; (2) reflective versus boorish; (3) competent versus inept; (4)

earthy versus repressed; and (5) benign versus mean-spirited humorous styles. It was

suggested that these five factors represent the major implicit dimensions by which

people characterize one another's sense of humor. In future research using this pro-

cedure, an individual's humorous style could be described (either by the individual or,

more preferably, by trained observers) by means of a card sort with the HBQD, and

factor scores for each of the five factors could be computed for that individual. These

scores could then be used in investigating their correlations with other personality,

social, and affective variables that might be of interest to the researcher.

As one example of such research, Craik and colleagues (1996) examined correla-

tions between factor scores on the (self-administered) HBQD and scores on a measure

of extraversion in a sample of university students. Greater extraversion (as comparedto introversion) was found to be associated with more socially warm and also more

boorish humor styles. The other three humor style factors were unrelated to

extraversion-introversion. Other studies examined correlations between the HBQDfactors and scores on the subscales of the California Psychological Inventory (Craik

et al., 1996) and the major personality dimensions of the FFM (Craik and Ware, 1998).

The results demonstrated that each of these general personality dimensions is char-

acterized by a unique constellation of humorous styles, suggesting that people with

different personality traits have different corresponding styles of humor. For example,individuals who are high on the FFM dimension of agreeableness tend to be charac-

terized by a socially warm, competent, and benign humorous style. On the other hand,

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SENSES OF HUMOR EXIST?

neuroticism was associated with an inept (as opposed to competent) humor style.

Further research is needed to replicate these findings and explore relationships with

other personality constructs. In addition, this methodology may be useful for future

research investigating such questions as the role of different humorous styles in inter-

personal relationships, coping with stress, and mental health generally.

In summary, the HBQD represents a method for investigating sense of humorthat takes a different perspective than the approaches using humor appreciation, self-

report, and humor production measures. However, research using this approach has

been quite limited so far, and its potential utility for exploring other facets of sense

of humor remains largely unexplored. An initial step that seems necessary for future

research is to determine the stability and replicability of the identified factors. In this

regard, a recent factor analytic study of the items from the HBQD did not replicate

the original factor structure (Kirsh and Kuiper, 2003), although this may have been

due to the use of a self-rating format using Likert scales rather the original q-sort

method. Because it was originally developed for use by trained observers, the use of

the HBQD in a self-report format also seems questionable. Many of the items appearto be difficult to understand by untrained raters and many refer to behaviors that are

not readily accessible to self-observation (e.g., "Enhances humorous impact with a

deft sense of timing;" "Delights in the implicit buffoonery of the over-pompous").

Nonetheless, this approach, when used as originally intended, appears to be a poten-

tially interesting avenue for future investigations.

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SENSES OF HUMOR EXIST?

As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, most people seem to think of sense

of humor as a unitary construct, although its meaning in popular usage tends to be

quite vague and ill-defined. Over the years, personality researchers have attempted to

clarify and refine the meaning of this concept, defining and measuring it in a numberof different ways. In the current state of the literature, with the proliferation of meas-

urement instruments over recent years, sense of humor seems to comprise a plethora

of apparently distinct trait dimensions. There are three factors of humor appreciation

measured with the 3WD, numerous constructs measured by many different self-

report humor tests, five styles of humorous conduct assessed by the HBQD, and an

unknown number of components of humor production ability. After starting out with

a seemingly simple idea, sense of humor turns out to be exceedingly complicated!

Do we really need this many different trait concepts, however, to meaningfullydescribe individual differences in humor? It would seem to be desirable for personal-

ity psychologists to identify the degree to which all these different traits are inter-

correlated and to determine whether individual differences in humor can be captured

using a more parsimonious set of basic dimensions. To answer these questions,

researchers should ideally administer all the existing measures to large samples of indi-

viduals representing a broad cross section of the population across different cultures.

Factor analyses could then be conducted on these data to identify the underlying


factor structure. This would be similar to the approach that was taken with person-

ality traits in the development of the FFM (John, 1990). Additional research could

then explore the relations between the identified core humor factors and broader per-

sonality dimensions such as the FFM to determine the degree to which sense ofhumordimensions overlap with known personality factors or are fairly unique. Only a limited

amount of research along these lines has been conducted so far, focusing primarily on

self-report measures.

Using data from a sample of German adults from the general population,

Willibald Ruch (1994) conducted a factor analysis of seven sense ofhumor scales from

four different self-report measures, including the SHRQ, CHS, SHQ, and Ziv's

(1981) measure of humor appreciation and creativity. Also included were the three

subscales of the Telic Dominance Scale (TDS) (Murgatroyd et al., 1978), which relate

to seriousmindedness, planfulness, and arousal avoidance (i.e., the inverse of a habit-

ually playful, humorous frame of mind). This analysis yielded only two factors. All

the sense of humor scales loaded highly positively on the first factor, which was ten-

tatively labeled cheerfulness. This finding suggests that these different self-report tests,

although they were designed to measure different components or aspects of sense of

humor, actually all assess a common underlying dimension. The second factor, labeled

restraint versus expressiveness, was found to be related only to the SHRQ, the Emo-tional Expressiveness scale of Svebak's SHQ, and (in the opposite direction) the

subscales of the TDS.To explore these dimensions further, Ruch examined the relations of these two

humor factors, as well as each of the individual humor scales, with the three super-

factors of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, which were viewed by Eysenck

(1990) as being the most basic, biologically based temperament dimensions of per-

sonality. All of the sense of humor scales loaded positively on extraversion, as did the

first (cheerfulness) factor found in the factor analysis. Thus, these self-report humorscales all appear to relate primarily to the general personality dimension of extraver-

sion, which comprises traits such as sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking,

carefree, dominant, and the tendency to experience positive moods. Overall, a sense

of humor seems to be a characteristic of extraverts rather than introverts. In addition,

the SHRQ and Emotional Expressiveness scale of the SHQ (along with the second

overall humor factor) loaded positively on the psychoticism dimension, which, amongother traits, relates to low impulse control. This relationship is likely due to items on

the SHRQ and SHQ-E scales that describe laughing in situations in which laughteris not typically seen to be appropriate.

Somewhat surprisingly, none of the humor scales were strongly loaded on the

neuroticism dimension, with only a weak negative loading for the SHQ-M scale.

Thus, individuals with high scores on these humor scales do not necessarily experi-

ence less negative emotions than do those with low humor scores. Contrary to popular

opinion, people with a strong sense of humor, as measured by these self-report scales,

are not necessarily very emotionally stable and well-adjusted. Overall, this study indi-

cated that the various self-report humor scales do not assess substantially different

humor dimensions, but instead form one main factor that is quite strongly related to

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL HUMORISTS

extraversion. Ruch suggested that measures of humor appreciation and the ability to

produce humor are likely not related to these temperament dimensions, although he

did not test this assumption in this study.

In a later study, Gabriele Kohler and Willibald Ruch (1996) conducted a similar

factor analysis of 23 humor-related self-report scales using another sample of Germanadults. In addition to the scales used in the previous study, this analysis also included

the cheerfulness and seriousness facet subscales of the STCI-T, the Multidimensional

Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS; Thorson and Powell, 1993a), and the Humor Initia-

tion Scale (HIS; Bell et al., 1986). Once again, only two factors were found. The first

factor, again labeled cheerfulness, had strong loadings for all the scales except for the

seriousness facet subscales of the STCI-T. The second factor, labeled seriousness, had

strong positive loadings for the STCI-T seriousness scales, and generally weak neg-ative loadings for most of the remaining humor scales.

The authors concluded that these results provided support for Ruch's model of

the temperament basis of sense of humor (discussed earlier). Most self-report humortests appear to relate strongly to trait cheerfulness, and they also tend to capture a

low seriousness or playfulness component to varying degrees. Once again, the first

factor was found to be strongly related to extraversion, and in this study it was also

somewhat negatively related to neuroticism. In addition, the second factor was againrelated to psychoticism, with greater psychoticism being associated with lower seri-

ousness, or greater playfulness. Thus, most of the variance in self-report humor scales

seems to be captured by the Eysenckian temperament dimensions of extraversion and

psychoticism and, less so, by (low) neuroticism.

This study also included measures of humor appreciation (the 3WD) and a test

ofhumor production ability (a cartoon captioning task), although unfortunately these

were not included in the factor analysis. Correlational analyses revealed that, as in

previous research, humor appreciation and humor production measures were unre-

lated to each other. In addition, self-report measures purporting to assess humor

appreciation were only weakly correlated with the 3WD appreciation scores, while

self-report scales designed to assess humor production were generally unrelated to the

rated funniness of participants' cartoon humor productions (with the exception of the

SHQ-M scale). Overall, these findings suggest that three distinct humor constructs

are assessed by measures of (1) humor appreciation (the 3WD), (2) humor produc-

tion, and (3) self-report scales, with the latter measures reflecting the two broad

dimensions of cheerfulness and, to varying degrees, (low) seriousness. Further

research is needed to replicate these findings with other populations and to include

newer humor measures, such as the HSQ and the HBQD.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL HUMORISTS

Do professional comedians have particular personality traits that differ from those

of other people? One commonly held belief is that comedians tend to be depressive

individuals who hide their dysphoria behind a mask of superficial hilarity. An old story


tells of a man going to a doctor to complain of feelings of depression and despon-

dency. The doctor encourages him to attend a performance of a famous comedian

who is extremely funny and will be sure to lift his spirits. The patient replies that he

is that comedian.

Two studies have investigated the personality traits of professional comedians.

Taking a psychoanalytic approach, Samuel Janus (1975, 1978) studied the intelligence,

educational level, family background, and personality structure of 55 male and 14

female comedians, all ofwhom were said to be famous and successful. Data were col-

lected using clinical interviews, early memories, dreams, handwriting analyses, pro-

jective tests, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Based on his

interpretations of these data, Janus concluded that comedians tended to be superior

in intelligence, angry, suspicious, and depressed. In addition, their early lives were

characterized by suffering, isolation, and feelings of deprivation, and they used humoras a defense against anxiety, converting their feelings of suppressed rage from physi-

cal to verbal aggression.

Many of the comedians were also described as shy, sensitive, and empathic indi-

viduals whose comedic success was due in part to an ability to accurately perceive the

fears and needs of their audiences. Overall, these findings appear to provide supportfor the popular view of professional comedians as generally unhappy people. However,the validity of the results is questionable, due to the use of some dubious assessment

methods and the lack of a control group, making it difficult to know whether these

characteristics are unique to comedians or may be shared, for example, by noncomic

entertainers.

Seymour Fisher and Rhoda Fisher (1981) conducted a more well-controlled studyof the personality characteristics and childhood memories of 43 professional comedi-

ans and circus clowns (whom they designated collectively as "comics"). To control for

possible non-comedy-related variables involved in being a public performer, these

researchers included an age-matched comparison sample of professional actors. Theyadministered a semistructured interview, the Rorschach inkblot test, the TAT, and

several standardized personality questionnaires to all participants.

The two groups did not differ on measures of depression or overall psychologi-cal health, casting doubt on the view that comedians are more psychologically dis-

turbed than other people. However, a number of interesting statistically significant

differences did emerge between the two groups. Compared to the actors, the comics'

responses revealed a significantly greater preoccupation with themes of good and evil,

unworthiness, self-deprecation, duty and responsibility, concealment, and smallness.

In addition, the comics, as compared to the actors, described their fathers in more

positive terms and their mothers in a more negative manner. These findings suggestedthat their comic tendencies may have originated in early family dynamics.

Most of these professional comics indicated that they had developed their

comedic abilities early in childhood, and many had been "class clowns" in school. In

order to investigate further the possible childhood dynamics involved in becoming a

comic, Fisher and Fisher conducted another study in which they used self-report ques-tionnaires to compare the personality characteristics and attitudes of the parents of a

CONCLUSION

group of children identified as class clowns with the parents of children who did not

show these comic characteristics. Compared to the mothers of noncomic children,

personality testing revealed that the mothers of the comic children were significantly

less kind, less sympathetic, less close and intimately involved with their children, and

more selfish and controlling, and that they wanted their children to take responsibil-

ity and grow up more quickly. For their part, the fathers of the comic children were

more passive than those of the noncomic children.

On the basis of the combined findings from these two studies, Fisher and Fisher

theorized that professional comics develop their humor skills in childhood as a means

of entertaining others, gaining approval, and asserting their goodness, in the context

of a relatively uncongenial family environment characterized by limited maternal

affection and warmth, a need to take on adult responsibilities at an early age, and a

sense that things often are not what they appear to be on the surface. Moreover, as

children they tend to take on a parentified healing role, learning to provide psycho-

logical support and reassurance to their parents by means of a humorous persona. By

making their parents laugh at their funny antics, they are able to gain the attention

and approval of otherwise unaffectionate and rejecting parents. Thus, humor in these

individuals seems to be a means of coping with feelings of anxiety and anger associ-

ated with a generally harsh and uncongenial family environment.

Overall, then, although this research does not support the popular view that pro-fessional comedians are depressed or otherwise psychologically disturbed, it does

suggest that humor in these individuals serves as a defense or coping mechanism for

dealing with adversity in early life. The well-honed comedic skills required for a suc-

cessful career as a comic may well be developed as a means of compensating for earlier

psychological losses and difficulties. As we will see in Chapter 8, similar mechanisms

may be involved in the development of a comic sense of humor in at least some ordi-

nary individuals who do not become professional comedians.

CONCLUSION

A sense of humor is seen by most people as an important personality character-

istic. It is one of the main dimensions by which people tend to characterize others,

and is viewed as a very desirable trait in potential friends and romantic partners

(Sprecher and Regan, 2002). But what exactly is sense of humor? As we have seen,

this concept has taken on many positive connotations over the years, while becoming

increasingly vague and ill-defined. The research reviewed in this chapter suggests that

sense of humor is not a unitary construct. Instead, it can be conceptualized and mea-

sured in a number of different ways, each focusing on different aspects of humor. Fur-

thermore, these different ways of defining it are not necessarily highly correlated with

one another, and they relate in quite different ways to other personality traits.

Research with a variety of different sense of humor measures is beginning to

clarify the nature and correlates of these humor-related traits, showing how theyinteract with other dimensions of personality and behavior. With regard to the humor


appreciation approach, Ruch's work with the 3WD has contributed a great deal to

our understanding of individual differences in the enjoyment of humor in the form

of jokes and cartoons. Interestingly, this research demonstrates that individual differ-

ences in humor appreciation have more to do with structural aspects than with the

content or topic of the jokes, contrary to the assumptions of many past researchers.

These investigations have also uncovered some very interesting correlations between

these structural humor appreciation dimensions and a variety of more general per-

sonality traits, showing that the types of humor that individuals enjoy reflect their

levels of conservative versus liberal social attitudes, sensation seeking, toughminded-

ness, and so on.

Other researchers have taken an ability approach to sense of humor, denning it

in terms of the ability to produce humor and amuse others. People who do well on

these types of tests presumably excel in the cognitive abilities needed to generate the

sorts of nonserious incongruities that are the hallmark of humor. Research using this

approach indicates that individuals who are more aware of and responsive to the reac-

tions of others to their own behavior (i.e., those who are high in self-monitoring), as

well as those who are generally more creative and capable of divergent thinking,

tend to be better at producing humor and making others laugh. Thus, an aptitude

for humor production may be viewed as a type of social skill as well as a creative

ability.

The many different self-report measures that have been created in recent years

were designed to assess different components or aspects of sense of humor. A con-

siderable amount of evidence for reliability and validity has been found for several of

these measures. However, factor analytic research suggests that most of these self-

report scales load on only one or two major factors. The strongest factor has to do

with a cheerful temperament and an extraverted, sociable disposition, while the other

involves a playful, nonserious attitude. These dimensions provide support for Ruch's

temperament model of sense of humor, and also reflect the social, emotional, and cog-nitive components of humor that I have discussed at earlier points in this book.

Until recently, a limitation of self-report humor measures has been their uniquefocus on positive, desirable aspects of humor. The HSQ represents a more recent ten-

dency among researchers to consider also more negative and socially undesirable func-

tions of humor in social interaction. As we will see in Chapter 9, researchers have

recently begun to explore the implications of these and other negative humor styles

for interpersonal relationships and psychological well-being. The HBQD representsanother potentially interesting method of investigating individual differences in

humor styles using q-sort ratings by observers. This method appears to be particu-

larly useful for examining popular conceptions of what a sense of humor is, as well as

providing a method for quantifying similarities and differences in humor styles

between individuals and examining relationships between various humor styles and

other personality traits and behaviors.

One view that seems to be emerging in the research is that different personalitytraits are reflected in different humor dimensions. In other words, people express their

particular personality traits through their humor. Thus, it may be that extraverts

CONCLUSION

express humor in different ways and enjoy different types of humor than do intro-

verts. Similarly, more agreeable people tend to have a friendly style of humor, while

hostile individuals tend to use humor in more aggressive ways. Other styles of humor

may be differentially associated with neuroticism versus emotional stability, as well as

openness and conscientiousness.

In summary, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on various

dimensions of sense of humor as a personality trait, providing a growing scientific

understanding of this ubiquitous tendency of humans to play with language and ideas.

In the following chapters, I will discuss research investigating how these various com-

ponents of sense of humor develop during childhood, and how they relate to aspectsof psychological and physical health.

CHAPTER 8

We'e have seen in previous chapters that

humor is a complex phenomenon involving a range of psychological functions. These

include cognitive processes relating to perception, language, concept formation,

memory, problem solving, and creativity; play and emotion; social relationships and

communication; and biological processes taking place in the brain and extending into

other parts of the body. Although nearly everyone engages in humor to some degree,individuals differ from one another in their humor comprehension and production,the types of humor that they enjoy, and the way they use and express humor in their

daily lives. In this chapter, we will see that all these psychological aspects of humor

begin to emerge soon after birth and continue to develop over the course of child-

hood and into adulthood.

What are the typical patterns of humor development in children? How do chil-

dren's developing cognitive, social, and emotional capacities interact with their ability

to understand, enjoy, and produce humor? What are the contributions of genetic and

social environmental factors to the development of individual differences in children's

sense of humor, and how does a sense of humor influence the child's cognitive, social,

and emotional functioning? How does humor change over the course of adulthood,

and what are the changing social and emotional functions of humor in later life?

These and other related questions have been the focus of a considerable body of

research that has accumulated over the past 40 years on the developmental

psychology of humor.

229

THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

Developmental psychologists make use of empirical research methods to study

psychological development over the life span. Employing a variety of research

methods, including observational studies, experiments, surveys, and case studies, and

using retrospective, cross-sectional, and longitudinal designs, they seek to understand

the processes of change in cognition, language, emotion, social functioning, and so

forth. Developmental psychologists take a multifaceted perspective, recognizing that

psychological development involves a complex interplay of genetics, biology, parental

and family influences, and other social environment factors. All these aspects of psy-

chological development in general apply as well to the development of humor. In this

chapter, I will discuss theories and research findings on the developmental psychol-

ogy ofhumor, examining the development of smiling and laughter in infancy and early

childhood, the origins of humor in children's play, the relation between humor and

cognitive development, humor as emotional coping in childhood and adolescence,

social aspects of humor development, individual differences in humor, and humor in

later adulthood and old age.

SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Infants typically begin to smile during their first month, initially in response to

tactile stimulation (e.g., tickling, rubbing the skin) accompanied by the sound of a

caregiver's voice, and a month or so later in response to visual stimuli such as moving

objects and lights. In the following months, babies begin to smile when they recog-nize objects such as the general configuration of a face and, eventually, the faces of

specific individuals such as their parents or siblings, indicating that they have devel-

oped a cognitive schema, or mental representation, of that object. Smiling appears to

be most likely to occur when an optimal amount of effort (not too little or too much)is required for recognition (McGhee, 1979).

Laughter first appears in the context of infant-caregiver interaction sometime

between 10 and 20 weeks of age, and it quickly becomes a frequent part of the inter-

actions between infants and their caregivers. Researchers have observed that younginfants typically produce one to four laughs in a ten-minute face-to-face play session

with their mother (Fogel et al., 1997). In an early study at the University of Min-

nesota, Alan Sroufe and Jane Wunsch (1972) investigated the stimuli that trigger

laughter during the first year of life by having mothers engage in a variety of behav-

iors with their infants, such as making lip-popping sounds, tickling, displaying unusual

facial expressions, and playing peek-a-boo games. They found that laughter occurs

with increasing frequency and in response to a greater variety of maternal behaviors

over the course of the year. The types of stimuli producing laughter also change over

the year. Tactile and auditory stimuli that produce relatively high rates of laughter at

7 or 8 months (e.g., kissing on the bare stomach or making the sound of a horse) are

less likely to do so by 12 months. In turn, visual and social actions (e.g., walking with

an exaggerated waddle, or the "I'm going to get you" game) are more likely to induce

laughter at 12 months than at 8 months. The authors noted that the stimuli that

SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 23

become most effective in inducing laughter with increasing age are those that seem

to make the greatest cognitive demands on the infant.

Overall, the actions that trigger laughter seem to be ones that are unexpected or

incongruous with regard to the child's developing cognitive schemas. When the

mother walks like a penguin, sucks on a baby bottle, or dangles a piece of cloth from

her mouth, these actions deviate from the familiar behavior that the infant has cometo expect. Based on these observations, Sroufe and Wunsch proposed an incongruity-based cognitive-arousal theory of laughter in infants. They suggested that laughteroccurs in response to an unexpected or incongruous event, which is appropriate to

the infant's cognitive level but does not mesh with his or her developing schemas.

Such incongruous events initially attract the attention of the child, inducing efforts

at information processing, and producing accompanying physiological arousal. If the

infant's interpretation of the event is negative due to feelings of insecurity or percep-tions of threat, he or she will cry and engage in avoidance behaviors; however, if the

interpretation is positive, due to perceptions of a safe and playful environment, he or

she will smile or laugh and engage in approach behaviors.

The authors noted that their data provided little support for the ambivalence view

of laughter that has been proposed by some theorists, according to which laughter is

associated with a concurrent mixture of both positive and negative emotions. Instead,

they observed that, although an infant might first respond to an incongruous stimu-

lus with some apprehension and hesitation, once laughter begins the affective tone

seems to be purely positive and is accompanied only by approach behaviors rather

than vacillation. Thus, laughter in infants appears to occur in response to the per-

ception of an incongruous object or event in a safe, playful, and nonthreatening social

context. As noted in Chapter 4, contemporary theories suggest that the perception of

nonserious incongruity is also the basis of humor in adults.

Some later experiments used the "peek-a-boo" game to investigate various factors

that influence the amount of smiling and laughter exhibited by infants in response to

incongruous events. In this game, a familiar person hides his or her face for a few

seconds and then suddenly reappears in front of the infant, saying "peek-a-boo!" while

smiling and making eye contact with the infant. Infants between 6 and 12 months fre-

quently smile and laugh upon seeing the person reappear. The disappearance and

reappearance of a familiar face in a playful context seems to be particularly enjoyable

to infants when they are in the process of mastering "object permanence," the recog-nition that objects continue to exist even when they are not visible to the child (Shultz,

1976).

One study (MacDonald and Silverman, 1978) showed that one-year-old children

are more likely to smile and laugh in response to this game when it is carried out bytheir mother as compared to a stranger (indicating the importance of familiarity and

perceptions of security) and when the mother rapidly approaches them during the

game rather than moving away from them (indicating the importance of increasing

arousal).

Gerrod Parrott and Henry Gleitman (1989), at Georgetown University, investi-

gated the role of expectations in six- to eight-month-old infants' enjoyment by


inserting occasional "trick trials" in a series of standard peek-a-boo trials. In these

trick trials, one person would hide and a different person would reappear in his or

her place, or else the same person would reappear but in a different location than in

the standard trials. The results showed that the infants smiled and laughed much less

frequently in response to the trick trials than the standard trials, whereas the trick

trials produced more eyebrow-raising, indicating surprise or puzzlement instead of

amusement.

These findings suggest that infants at this age have well-formed expectations

about the identity and location of the returning person, and that conformity to these

expectations contributes to their enjoyment of the game, whereas large deviations

from expectations induce puzzlement rather than enjoyment. The authors suggestedthat when deviations from expectations are too great, the infant is unable to "resolve"

the incongruity by assimilating it into an overarching schema, thereby making sense

of it in some way. Thus infants, like older children and adults, are not always amused

by just any sort of incongruity or deviation from their expectations, but prefer devi-

ations that can be reinterpreted in a way that makes sense. In addition to these cog-nitive aspects, the trick trials, being so deviant from the infants' experience, mighthave induced a serious, nonplayful reaction of puzzlement in the infants, interfering

with the playful state of mind that is required for humor.

The importance of social factors in laughter was demonstrated by a study that

found that infants never smiled or laughed in response to an impersonal analogue of

the peek-a-boo game in which a toy, instead of a person, was made to disappear and

suddenly reappear, whereas they frequently smiled and laughed in response to a person

playing the game (Shultz, 1976). Thus, laughter right from its inception tends to be

a form of social communication. Infant laughter typically occurs during interactions

with parents and other caregivers, who in turn tend to laugh in response to the

infants.

More recent research by Evangeline Nwokah and her colleagues at Purdue Uni-

versity have investigated in greater detail the social nature of laughter as a means of

communicating emotional information between infants and caregivers (Fogel et al.,

1997; Nwokah and Fogel, 1993; Nwokah et al., 1999; Nwokah et al., 1994). For

example, Nwokah and colleagues (1994) conducted a longitudinal study in which theyobserved the laughter of mothers and their infants during free play sessions over the

first two years of the infants' lives, to examine the timing and temporal sequence of

laughter in interpersonal interaction. They found that infant laughter increased in

frequency over the first year and remained fairly stable during the second year (aver-

aging about .3 laughs per minute by age two), whereas the rate of laughter in the

mothers remained quite stable over the two years (at about .55 laughs per minute).

By the second year, the rate and duration of laughter was significantly correlated

between mothers and infants, meaning that the more a particular mother laughed, the

more her infant laughed. Thus, laughter appears to be modeled by the mother duringthe first year and stabilizes in the infant by the second year.

By the time the infant is one year of age, both mother and infant can anticipate

that by altering their tone of voice, facial expressions, and actions, they can induce

SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 23

laughter in each other. For example, by engaging in incongruous behaviors such as

putting a toy on her head, the mother can encourage laughter in the infant, althoughthe likelihood of laughter also depends on such factors as the timing, element of sur-

prise, emotional state of both the mother and infant, and attention of the infant (Fogelet al., 1997). Thus, laughter is clearly a social process, serving an emotional commu-nication function.

As children progress into the preschool or nursery school years, their laughteroccurs increasingly in the context of playful interactions with other children in addi-

tion to caregivers. Charlene Bainum and her colleagues at the University of Tennessee

observed groups of three-, four-, and five-year-old children in a nursery school to

investigate laughing and smiling during structured and unstructured play (Bainum,

Lounsbury, and Pollio, 1984). No differences were found between girls and boys in

the overall frequency of smiling and laughter across the three age groups. The social

nature of smiling and laughter was again clearly demonstrated by the fact that 95

percent of these behaviors occurred when children were interacting with others, and

only 5 percent occurred when alone. Laughter increased in frequency from age three

to five, whereas smiling decreased over this age span. By the age of five, children

laughed an average of 7.7 times per hour during play. Smiling and laughter in three-

year-olds occurred more often in response to amusing nonverbal actions (e.g., funnyfaces or body movements), whereas in five-year-olds they appeared more frequently

in response to amusing verbal behaviors (e.g., funny comments, stories, songs, or

unusual word usage).

In all three age groups, laughter occurred most frequently in response to inten-

tional humor rather than events that were unintentionally funny. Interestingly, chil-

dren were somewhat more likely to laugh at the funny things they themselves said or

did, rather than the behavior of others, indicating that laughter was often used as a

signal to indicate that particular behaviors were meant to be fanny. Although the

majority of laughter occurred in response to socially positive or at least neutral humor-

ous behavior, there was an increase from ages three to five in the proportion of laugh-ter occurring in response to socially negative behaviors such as teasing, shoving, or

ridicule.

Compared to laughter, smiling occurred in response to a wider variety of events,

especially incidental (not intentionally funny) events, although it also occurred alongwith laughter in the context of intentional silliness/clowning events. Thus, althoughsome instances of smiling may be viewed as a diminished form of laughter, indicat-

ing a lower level of amusement, smiling also serves a broader range of social func-

tions than does laughter.

What are the acoustic characteristics of young children's laughter? Nwokah and

her colleagues (1993) conducted acoustical analyses of 50 samples of laughter emitted

by three-year-old children while interacting with their mothers. They identified four

distinct types of laughter in these children: (1) comment laughs, comprising a single

laughter syllable or note with a fundamental frequency (pitch) close to that of normal

speech, and lasting about 200 milliseconds; (2) chuckle laughs, consisting of either one

note with two peaks or two notes, with a somewhat higher pitch and a total duration


of about 500 milliseconds; (3) rhythmical laughter, comprising three or more notes with

a similar fundamental frequency as the chuckle and more complex harmonic struc-

ture, lasting 1 to 1.5 sec; and (4) squeal laughter, involving a single note of about 500

milliseconds duration with a very high-pitched fundamental frequency.

The duration of individual notes or syllables within all the different kinds of

laughs (with the exception of squeal laughter) was very similar to that found in adult

laughter (approximately 200 to 220 milliseconds). Some minor differences in acoustic

structure were observed between children's and adults' laughter, largely due to chil-

dren having less control over the vocal apparatus. The authors concluded that differ-

ent kinds of laughs are used to communicate different degrees of emotional intensity

as well as qualitatively different emotional experiences. For example, chuckle laugh-ter often occurs in response to an accomplishment on the part of the child, whereas

rhythmical laughter tends to occur in a wide variety of high-arousal social contexts,

often where both partners are laughing.

HUMOR AND PLAY

As we have seen in earlier chapters of this book, humor is closely related to play.

Research on laughter in chimpanzees and other animals, discussed in Chapter 6, sug-

gests that the evolutionary origins of laughter arise in the context of rough-and-tumble social play. Developmental psychologists studying humor have also noted that

laughter and humor develop in human children in the context of play (see Figure 6),

and many view humor as a particular form of mental play (Barnett, 1990, 1991;

Bergen, 1998b, 2002, 2003; McGhee, 1979).

What exactly is play? Although there is little agreement among play researchers

and theorists about how to define this nebulous concept, most would agree that it is

an enjoyable, spontaneous activity that is carried out for its own sake with no obvious

immediate biological purpose (Berlyne, 1969). Michael Apter (1982) suggested that

play is best viewed as a state of mind rather than a characteristic of certain types of

activities. Thus, one can engage in almost any activity in a playful way, as long as one

has a nonserious, activity-oriented (rather than goal-oriented) mental set.

There are many similarities between humor and play (Bergen, 2002). Laughterand play both emerge at a similar age in infants (around four to six months), and both

are facilitated by similar social contexts. Humor and play are both enjoyable, and theyshare similar characteristics regarding motivation, control, and reality. They both

involve an "as if" attitude, they are enjoyed for their own sake without having an

obvious serious purpose, and they both occur in safe settings with people who are

trusted. They also both seem to involve consolidation and mastery of newly acquiredskills and concepts. Moreover, children are socialized into play and humor by their

caregivers in similar ways and in similar contexts. Just as parents initiate their infant

children into the "play frame," teaching them to recognize the verbalizations and

behaviors that signal "this is play," parents also teach their children the meaning of

HUMOR AND PLAY 23

FIGURE 6 Humor develops during childhood in the context of social play. SWProductions/Getty Images/Brand X Pictures

the "humor frame" by means of facial expressions, behavioral and vocal exaggerations,and verbal labels indicating "this is funny."

Doris Bergen (1998a), a developmental psychologist at Miami University in Ohio,asked parents of children from ages one to seven to keep a record of the events that

the children themselves perceived to be funny. Most of the reported examples of chil-

dren's humor took place in the context of play and involved playful manipulations of

language and actions. Common examples included: expressed joy in mastery and

movement play (e.g., tickling games, chasing), clowning (e.g., exaggerated facial or

bodily movements or voices), performing incongruous actions (e.g., rolling up a red

placemat and pretending to eat it as a "Fruit Roll"), and playing with sounds and word

meanings (e.g., chanting or singing nonsense words).

The close connection between humor and play is also reflected in research

showing that children with a greater sense of humor tend to engage in more play in

general. Lynn Barnett (1990) developed a measure for assessing children's playfulnessin which sense ofhumor is included as one of the subscales. The sense of humor scale


includes items relating to the frequency ofjoking, playful teasing, telling funny stories,

and laughing with other children. In addition to humor, the measure, which was

designed to be used by adult observers to rate children's playfulness, also includes

scales for physical, social, and cognitive spontaneity and manifest joy. Research with

this measure has shown that the sense of humor scale is significantly correlated with

a number of other measures of general playfulness in children, lending further supportto the close link between humor and play (Barnett, 1991). Similarly, a study of humorin nursery school children by Paul McGhee and Sally Lloyd (1982) showed that the

strongest predictor of children's verbal and behavioral humor initiation and laughter

responsiveness was the frequency with which they engaged in social play.

Although humor and play are closely related, they are not exactly the same thing.

A small child dressing up in her mother's fancy dress and high-heeled shoes and

putting on lipstick may be engaging in enjoyable make-believe play, but she does not

necessarily find it to be humorous or "funny." However, if she puts the dress on back-

wards, wears the shoes on her hands, or gives herself a clown face with the lipstick,

she might perceive this to be humorous and expect other people to laugh at it as well.

Thus, humor involves a greater degree of incongruity, bizarreness, exaggeration, or

discrepancy from the way things normally are, along with a playful attitude.

At what point in a child's development can we say that humor first diverges from

other forms of play? When we see a six-month-old infant laughing in response to the

peek-a-boo game, it is tempting to assume that he or she is experiencing humor;

however, according to some researchers, this is not necessarily the case. Laughter in

infants and young children might be used to communicate a variety of positive emo-

tions, and not just humor. When then do children begin to laugh at things that are

"funny" and not just "fun"? This has been a topic of some controversy among devel-

opmental psychologists.

According to Martha Wolfenstein (1954), an early psychoanalytically-oriented

researcher ofhumor in children, humor does not emerge until sometime in the second

year of life, when make-believe play becomes differentiated into two strands, which

she called "serious" make-believe and "joking" make-believe. In both kinds of make-

believe, the child pretends that something is real, but knows that it is not. In serious

make-believe, the focus is on the pretense or illusion of reality, whereas in jokingmake-believe the emphasis is on the recognition of unreality. Thus, a child engagingin serious make-believe play may become engrossed in taking on a role, pretendingto be a "mommy" or a "truck driver," and carrying out activities that closely resem-

ble those of a real mother or truck driver. In humor, however, the child will inten-

tionally distort reality, behaving in unusual or exaggerated ways with the intention of

causing someone to laugh.

Paul McGhee (1979), a prominent early developmental humor researcher, also

saw a close link between humor and make-believe play. His theory of humor devel-

opment was strongly influenced by the more general theory of cognitive developmentformulated by the well-known Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1970). Similarly to

Wolfenstein, McGhee argued that genuine humor does not begin until the middle of

the second year of life, when children begin to develop the capacity for fantasy, pre-

HUMOR AND PLAY 237

tense, or make-believe play. This corresponds to the transition from the sensorimo-

tor stage to the preoperational stage in Piaget's theory. At this stage, children beginto represent schemas internally instead of relying on direct manipulation of objects

to gain knowledge of the world (the concept of cognitive schemas was discussed in

Chapter 4).

The most significant achievement at this age is the ability to use symbols and

signs, including words, to represent other objects. According to Piagetian theory,

when a child perceives information that does not fit with his or her existing schema

about a particular object or event, he or she experiences incongruity. To make

sense of this incongruous information, the child normally either reinterprets the per-ceived information to make it fit with the existing schema (assimilation, in Piaget's

terms), or modifies the schema so that it can incorporate the new information (accom-

modation). In this way, the incongruity is eliminated and the child's intelligence is

expanded.

According to McGhee (1979), these processes for making sense of events can

occur in two ways: either through "reality assimilation," which is more serious and

reality-based, or "fantasy assimilation," which is more playful and makes use of pre-

tense and make-believe. In the latter type of assimilation, which is the essence of

humor, the child responds to incongruity by playfully applying the wrong schemas to

objects, treating one object as if it were another one. In this way, children can create

experiences in their fantasy world that they know cannot take place in reality. Thus,in McGhee's view, humor essentially involves the perception of an incongruity alongwith fantasy assimilation.

For example, a child might pretend to comb her hair with a pencil, thus stretch-

ing the pencil schema to make it incorporate characteristics of a comb. The schema

is not permanently altered in fantasy assimilation, as it is in reality assimilation, but

is temporarily applied incorrectly. Based on developmental research by Piaget and

others, McGhee argued that children are not capable of this sort of fantasy assimila-

tion until they acquire the capacity for symbolic play at around 1 8 months of age. In

McGhee's view, then, the six-month-old infant who laughs in response to the peek-a-boo game is not really experiencing humor, even though he or she may perceive the

situation to be incongruous and obviously enjoys it.

In contrast to both Wolfenstein and McGhee, developmental psychologists Diana

Pien and Mary Rothbart (1980) argued that symbolic play capacities and fantasy

assimilation are not necessary for the appreciation of humor. Instead, they proposedthat humor requires only the recognition of incongruity along with a playful inter-

pretation of that incongruity, and they argued that both these abilities are present bythe time infants first exhibit laughter, around the fourth month. Although infants at

this age do not have internalized mental schemas, they do develop sensory and motor

schemas based on their interactions with the physical world, and they are able to rec-

ognize events that are incongruous with respect to these developing schemas. In

support of their view, they cited the research by Sroufe and Wunsch (1972) described

earlier, which indicated that infants laugh in response to visual and social events that

involve discrepancy from familiar sensorimotor schemas.


Although Pien and Rothbart agreed with McGhee (and Piaget) that make-believe

play does not begin until the preoperational stage, they pointed out that by four

months of age infants are capable of simple forms of playful behavior involving prac-

tice, exploratory, and manipulative play with objects; motor play; and social play (see

also Garner, 1998). Following Piaget, they defined play as actions that are carried out

for the pleasure of the activity alone, involving assimilation with little or no serious

attempt to accommodate existing schemas to fit a stimulus. They argued that this

ability to respond playfully is all that is necessary for incongruity to be perceived as

humorous. To respond to incongruity in a playful way, the infant merely needs to be

in a safe, nonthreatening environment. In Pien and Rothbart's view, then, a six-month-

old infant laughing at the peek-a-boo game is actually experiencing humor.

The question ofwhen humor first occurs in infants may be impossible to resolve,

since it depends in part on how one defines humor. Perhaps the most we can say is

that humor originates in play and gradually becomes differentiated from other forms

of play as the child's cognitive abilities develop (Bergen, 2003). Most researchers

today seem to avoid the question ofwhen humor begins in children, focusing on overt

behaviors like smiling and laughter and avoiding making inferences about subjective

cognitive experiences such as humor. Nonetheless, most would agree that by the

end of their second year, children are able to distinguish between humor and other

forms of play. This also becomes more evident as children's developing language skills

enable them to describe certain events as "funny" or "silly," in addition to laughingat them.

HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

As we have seen in this and earlier chapters, most researchers and theorists view

incongruity as an essential component ofhumor. Incongruity may be viewed as a devi-

ation or discrepancy from one's normal expectations. As discussed in Chapter 4, these

expectations are based on one's cognitive schemas, the mental representations stored

in memory. Children, as well as adults, tend to laugh at objects or events that do not

conform to their existing schemas. Since schemas gradually develop throughout child-

hood as the individual gains experience and familiarity with the world, the kinds of

objects and events that are perceived to be incongruous with respect to these

schemas and therefore humorous also change over time. Things that seem incon-

gruous and funny at an early age become mundane and less humorous at a later stage

ofcognitive development, whereas the older child's more sophisticated schemas enable

him or her to perceive and enjoy new kinds of incongruity and more complex forms

of humor that are not comprehensible to the younger child. Thus, the developmentof a sense of humor in children parallels their overall cognitive development. Theeffects of cognitive development on humor comprehension and appreciation have

been the focus of a great deal of theoretical work and empirical research since the

early 1970s.

HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 23'

McGhee's Four-Stage Model of Humor Development

Based on a variety of research findings, Paul McGhee (1979), then at Texas Tech

University, proposed four stages of humor development in children that correspondto general trends in cognitive development. As we saw earlier, McGhee argued that

the appreciation of humor does not begin until the middle of the second year of life,

when children progress into the preoperational stage of cognitive development and

acquire the capacity for make-believe or fantasy play. The first stage of humor devel-

opment, which McGhee named incongruous actions toward objects, therefore begins at

this age. According to McGhee, children at this age are able to represent objects with

internal mental schemas, and their humor consists of playfully assimilating objects

into schemas to which they do not normally belong.For example, a child might hold a leaf to her ear and begin talking to it as if it

were a telephone. The child's recognition of the inappropriateness of the action is an

important component of the humor: if the child simply misapplies a schema without

recognizing the error, this may provoke laughter in adult observers but not in the

child. Indeed, one way children often learn to behave in humorous ways is when their

inadvertent cognitive errors unintentionally produce laughter in their parents and

others. Once they discover that such incongruous actions can cause people to laugh,

they begin to intentionally engage in such behavior to evoke laughter in others

(Bariaud, 1988).

McGhee's second stage ofhumor development, called incongruous labeling ofobjectsand events, begins early in the third year, when the child is able to begin using lan-

guage in playful ways. At this stage, the humorous use of language involves mislabel-

ing objects or events. For example, children at this age may derive a great deal of

amusement from calling a dog a cat, a hand a foot, an eye a nose, and so on. Thechild must understand the correct meaning of the word and must be aware that he or

she is applying it incorrectly for it to be perceived as humorous. Thus, the child's

mastery of the correct usage of the word seems to be the critical factor in determin-

ing when it will be misapplied in a playful manner to create humor.

The third humor stage, called conceptual incongruity, begins around three years of

age when, according to Piaget, the child begins to realize that words refer to classes

of objects or events that have certain key defining characteristics. Humor in this stageinvolves the violation of one or more attributes of a concept rather than simply mis-

labeling it. For example, instead of simply finding it fanny to call a cat a dog, a child

at this stage might find humor in imagining or seeing a picture of a cat with morethan one head that says "moo" instead of "meow."

More recently, however, Johnson and Mervis (1997) questioned the cognitivebasis of the transition from stage two to stage three. They pointed out that the Piaget-ian idea of a transition from "preconcepts" to "true concepts" at this age has not held

up well in the research on children's early conceptual development. Instead, infants'

prelinguistic categories have been shown to be based on the same principles as the

categories of adults. These authors suggested that the transition from stage two to


stage three in McGhee's model may simply reflect a change in what children tend to

talk about. Children first learn names for objects, allowing them to create stage-twohumor involving mislabeling of objects. Later, they begin learning words for the

attributes of objects, leading to the enjoyment of stage-three humor involving incon-

gruous attributes.

During this time, children also develop more complex syntactic abilities, enablingthem to engage in various types of language play, including repetitious rhyming of

words and the creation of nonsense words (e.g., "ringo, dingo, bingo"). Children at

this age also begin to enjoy simple riddles, although those they typically tell may be

best described as "preriddles," since they follow the structure of riddles without

involving the play on words or concepts found in the true riddles enjoyed at a later

stage (Yalisove, 1978).

McGhee's fourth and final stage of humor development, called multiple meanings,

begins around seven years of age, when children progress from the preoperational to

the concrete operations stage in Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Piaget,

1970). Children in the concrete operations stage are able to manipulate schemas in

their minds, imagining the effects of various actions on objects (i.e., "operations")without having to carry them out behaviorally. They are also able to understand con-

servation, recognizing that physical matter does not magically appear or disappear

despite changes in form. In addition, they are able to carry out reversibility of think-

ing, or the recognition that operations can be reversed so that their effects are nulli-

fied. Children at this stage also become less egocentric, and begin to be able to

recognize that other people's perspectives may be different from their own. All of

these cognitive abilities contribute to their ability to appreciate more sophisticated

kinds of humor that play with reality in more complex ways.With regard to linguistic abilities, children at this stage begin to recognize the

ambiguity inherent in language at various levels, including phonology, morphology,

semantics, and syntax (Shultz and Pilon, 1973; Shultz and Robillard, 1980). They are

therefore able to enjoy the play on words and double meanings that are an important

component of many jokes and riddles (Whitt and Prentice, 1977; Yalisove, 1978). For

example, children at this age would be able to understand the double meaninginvolved in the following riddle (McGhee, 1979, p. 77):

"Why did the old man tiptoe past the medicine cabinet?"

"Because he didn't want to wake up the sleeping pills."

In addition to understanding puns and other jokes based on double meanings and

language play, children at this age are able to understand other kinds of abstract humorbased on logical inconsistencies and requiring inferential thinking. Several studies byMcGhee (197 la, 1971b) showed that preoperational children had difficulty under-

standing the meaning of various jokes and cartoons containing abstract incongrui-

ties, whereas those who had achieved concrete operations demonstrated better

comprehension.McGhee (1979) viewed stage four humor as the final stage in humor develop-

ment, noting that this type of humor continues to be enjoyed into adolescence and

HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

adulthood. However, we might speculate that some further development takes placewith the onset of Piaget's formal operations stage beginning in early adolescence

(Piaget, 1970). In this stage, the individual's thinking becomes more abstract and is

governed more by logical principles than by perceptions and experiences. Individuals

at this age have a more flexible, critical, and abstract view of the world. They are able

to mentally manipulate more than two categories of variables at the same time, to

detect logical inconsistencies in a set of statements, to hypothesize logical sequencesof actions, and to anticipate future consequences of actions. All of these cognitive

capacities no doubt enable the individual to play with ideas and concepts at a moreabstract level than is possible in the concrete operations stage (Fiihr, 2001).

For example, individuals at this stage might begin to enjoy existential jokes about

the meaning of life, as well as jokes that play with traditional joke structures and forms.

In one study in which children were asked to produce their favorite riddle (Yalisove,

1978), those in grades two to seven tended to provide riddles based on language ambi-

guity (e.g., "Why do birds fly south? It's too far to walk"), whereas by grade ten theywere more likely to give absurdity-based riddles (e.g., "How can you fit six elephantsinto a Volkswagen Beetle? Three in the front and three in the back"). Overall, then,

the cognitive development of humor may be viewed as the development of more

sophisticated mental structures and cognitive abilities with which the individual is able

to engage in the perception and creation of playful incongruities.

The Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children's Humor

Thomas Shultz and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal conducted

a number of early studies on the relationship between cognitive development and

humor appreciation (for a review, see Shultz, 1976). They based their research on the

incongruity-resolution theory ofhumor (discussed in Chapter 3), which proposes that

humor is composed of an incongruity that can be resolved in some way. This model

of humor is best illustrated by jokes, in which an incongruity in the punch line is typ-

ically resolved by reinterpreting some ambiguous information in the joke setup. These

researchers were particularly interested in the relative contribution of incongruityand resolution to humor appreciation in children at different stages of cognitive

development.In one study, Shultz and Horibe (1974) presented children in grades one to seven

with a series of intact and modified jokes. In some of the modified jokes, the incon-

gruity was removed, and in others the incongruity remained but the resolution was

removed. For example, one of the original jokes was the following:

Woman: Call me a cab.

Man: You're a cab.

The resolution-removed version of this joke was:

Woman: Call a cab for me.

Man: You're a cab.

The incongruity-removed version was:

Woman: Call me a cab.

Man: Yes, ma'am.


The results of this study showed that, for children in grades three to seven, the orig-

inal jokes were perceived to be funnier than the resolution-removed jokes, which in

turn were funnier than the incongruity-removed jokes. However, for children in grade

one, there was no difference in perceived funniness between the original and

resolution-removed jokes, whereas both were funnier than the incongruity-removed

jokes. These results were interpreted as indicating that younger children find humorin incongruity alone and do not require the incongruity to be resolved. Beginningsometime between grades one and three, and presumably continuing into adulthood,

resolution of the incongruity becomes important for humor appreciation. This

conclusion was further supported by the fact that, when asked to explain the meaningof the original jokes, children in grade one had great difficulty in comprehending joke

resolutions, particularly in identifying the hidden meaning of the ambiguity in the

joke setup.

The authors noted that the transition from enjoyment of incongruity alone to

resolvable incongruity seems to occur at about the same age when children typically

progress from the preoperational to the concrete operational stage of cognitive devel-

opment, suggesting that the increased mental abilities of this later stage may be nec-

essary for the child to appreciate and enjoy the resolution components of humor.

Thus, this transition from incongruity-only humor to incongruity-resolution humor

corresponds to the beginning of McGhee's fourth stage of humor development. Theconclusions drawn from this study were further supported by similar findings in

another study by Shultz (1974a) using humorous riddles instead of jokes.

A subsequent study at the University of Oregon by Diana Pien and Mary Roth-

bart (1976), however, cast some doubt on Shultz's conclusions. These researchers

pointed out that the types of jokes used in these studies were based on linguistic ambi-

guities that may have been too difficult for six-year-old children to understand. Thefailure to appreciate resolution at this age may therefore simply have been due to com-

prehension difficulties with the particular stimuli used, rather than a reduced impor-tance of resolution in humor generally. Indeed, these authors demonstrated that, when

simpler jokes and cartoons were used as stimuli, four- and five-year-old children were

able to understand resolution of incongruity and showed a preference for jokes con-

taining resolution rather than incongruity alone (see also similar findings by A. J.

Klein, 1985).

Pien and Rothbart reasoned that these findings were inconsistent with Shultz's

view that children progress from a stage of enjoying incongruity alone to the enjoy-ment of incongruity plus resolution. They argued instead that incongruity with or

without resolution may be perceived as humorous at all ages from infancy to adult-

hood. This view seems to be consistent with more recent research findings. As noted

earlier, the "peek-a-boo" study by Parrott and Gleitman (1989) that included "trick"

trials suggested that some degree of resolution may be important for humor even in

infancy. On the other hand, Ruch's factor-analytic studies of jokes and cartoons that

were discussed in Chapter 7 (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998) indicate that adults also can

enjoy humor containing incongruity without resolution (i.e., nonsense humor). Thus,the presence or absence of resolution does not seem to be an important factor in

HUMORANDCOGNITIVEDEVELOPMENT 24

humor development, but instead characterizes two different kinds of humor across

the lifespan.

Moreover, as Bernard Lefort (1992) pointed out, jokes, riddles, and cartoons are

particular narrative forms that are communicated in a social context as a sort of gamebetween the teller and the listener. What Shultz called resolution may be better viewed

as a particular class of techniques used in these forms of verbal humor to simultane-

ously activate incongruous multiple schemas (see also Attardo, 1997). In other forms

of humor, such as spontaneous witticisms, these techniques may not be as necessaryfor incongruous schema activation. As they gain experience with jokes, children learn

to organize their comprehension activity around this narrative framework, internal-

izing the traditional rules of the game. Thus, developmental research based on jokesand riddles, such as the studies by Shultz and colleagues, may tell us more about chil-

dren's developing understanding of the traditional joke structure than about their

experience of humor more generally.

Humor and Cognitive Mastery

McGhee's model of humor development suggests that, once children have mas-

tered particular cognitive abilities, they soon begin to create humor by playing with

these abilities in incongruous ways. As McGhee (1983a, p. 115) put it, "Once a child

becomes confident of the normal relationship between stimulus elements or achieves

a new level of understanding through acquisition ofnew cognitive skills, he/she enjoys

distorting that knowledge or understanding in the guise of a joke." Evidence from a

number of studies of children's humor indicates that children particularly enjoy humorthat plays with concepts that they have only recently mastered, rather than those with

which they are very familiar (McGhee, 1974).

In an early study of humor and cognitive development, researchers at Yale Uni-

versity presented cartoons to children in the second, third, fourth, and fifth grades

(Zigler, Levine, and Gould, 1966). The researchers noted the degree to which the

children smiled and laughed in response to the cartoons, and also asked them to

explain the meaning of each cartoon. Not surprisingly, the children showed an increas-

ing comprehension of the cartoons across the four grades, with fifth-grade children

exhibiting the greatest understanding of the humor. However, the pattern of smilingand laughter in response to the cartoons did not follow the same pattern. The fre-

quency of smiling and laughing increased from the second to the fourth grades, par-

alleling the children's increasing comprehension, but in the fifth grade there was a

steep drop to the level shown by children in the second grade. Thus, although theyunderstood the humor better, fifth-grade children did not find it nearly as funny as

did those in preceding grades. At this age, the cartoons seemed to be too simple and

therefore no longer amusing.The authors proposed a "cognitive congruency" hypothesis to explain these find-

ings, suggesting an inverted-U relationship between cognitive difficulty and enjoy-ment of humor. Cartoons that make too great a cognitive demand on a child are not

understood and are therefore not enjoyed, but those that make too little demand are


not found to be funny, even though they may be understood. Thus, humorous stimuli

are enjoyed if they are congruent with the complexity of the child's cognitive schemas.

Further support for this hypothesis was found in a subsequent study by the same

authors in which cartoons with different levels of difficulty were administered to chil-

dren at three different grade levels (Zigler et al., 1967). Children at each grade level

preferred cartoons with an intermediate level of difficulty, and this optimal difficulty

level increased across the three grades.

Two experiments conducted by McGhee (1976) provided additional support for

this hypothesis. In the first study, children of varying ages were first assessed for their

ability to understand conservation of mass using standardized tests. Conservation of

mass refers to the recognition that objects, such as a piece of modeling clay, retain

the same mass even when they change shape. The children were then presented with

a series of jokes that were based on a humorous violation of conservation concepts.

The following is an example of such jokes:

Mr. Jones went into a restaurant and ordered a whole pizza for dinner. When the waiter asked him

if he wanted it cut into six or eight pieces, Mr. Jones said: "Oh, you'd better make it six! I could

never eat eight!"

Analyses of the participants' mnniness ratings of the jokes revealed a significant curvi-

linear effect, with the highest ratings being given by children who had just recently

acquired conservation skills, and lower ratings given both by those who had not yetachieved conservation and by older children who had presumably attained these skills

several years earlier. A similar inverted-U pattern of results was obtained in the second

study, in which children were first tested for their understanding of the Piagetian

concept of class inclusion (the ability to recognize that an object can be a member of

more than one class at the same time), and were then presented with jokes that

involved a violation of this principle. Again, the jokes were rated as most funny

by the children who had just recently mastered the concept that was violated in the

jokes.

McGhee interpreted these findings as supportive of the cognitive congruency

hypothesis, suggesting that children derive the greatest pleasure from humor that

presents an optimal level of challenge to their cognitive structures. Humor that is too

difficult or too easy to understand is not enjoyed as much. The cognitive congruency

hypothesis was also supported by several studies examining associations between chil-

dren's cognitive development and their comprehension and enjoyment of humorousriddles (Park, 1977; Prentice and Fathman, 1975; Whitt and Prentice, 1977; Yalisove,

1978).

Cognitive Development of Irony and Sarcasm

Most of the early empirical research on cognitive aspects of humor developmentfocused on children's comprehension and appreciation of "canned" forms of humor,such as jokes, cartoons, and riddles. As I have noted in earlier chapters, these types of

humor are context-free and portable, and are therefore quite easy to study in the lab-

HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 24

oratory. However, they represent only a small part of the humor encountered by chil-

dren (as well as adults) in everyday life (Bergen, 1998b; R. A. Martin and Kuiper,

1999). Most humor in childhood arises from spontaneous verbal and nonverbal behav-

iors during playful social interactions, such as wordplay, silly gestures and actions,

incongruous fantasy play, teasing, irony, sarcasm, and practical jokes (Bergen, 1998a;

Fabrizi and Pollio, 1987b; McGhee, 1980b). Investigation of these kinds of naturally

occurring humor poses greater challenges to researchers, since they depend more on

the constantly changing social context. Nonetheless, in recent years there has been

some research on the development of children's comprehension of certain types of

conversational humor, particularly irony and sarcasm (see Creusere, 1999, for a

review). This cognitive developmental research parallels the psycholinguistic research

on irony and sarcasm in adults that was discussed in Chapter 4.

As noted in Chapter 4, irony is a humorous figure of speech that is used to com-municate indirectly a message that is the opposite of the literal meaning of a sentence.

For example, someone who says "What a beautiful day!" when the weather is cold

and stormy actually intends to communicate "What an awful day." Irony is also closely

related to sarcasm, which depends for its effect on "bitter, caustic, and other ironic

language that is usually directed against an individual" (Gibbs, 1986, p. 3). For

example, if someone says "You're so graceful" in response to someone tripping and

falling, this is an ironic statement that may also be sarcastic. On the other hand, ironycan also be used in making indirect compliments as well as criticisms. For example, a

high-achieving student who receives an A on a test might be told by a classmate,

"You'd better work harder next time!"

To understand and appreciate irony and sarcasm, children must develop the ability

to make several complex linguistic and social inferences. First, they need to recognizethat the intended meaning of the ironic statement is not the surface meaning, and

therefore they must learn to substitute the true meaning for the literal meaning. In

addition, they need to recognize the pragmatic (i.e., social and communicative) func-

tions of irony in speech. Two such functions have been identified by researchers. First,

irony is used to tinge or mute the implied criticism or praise, making the criticism

less negative and the compliment less positive than they would be using literal lan-

guage. Second, irony is used to convey humor, based on the incongruity between the

literal and implied meanings, and is therefore meant to be funny (Dews et al., 1995).

Developmental researchers have investigated how children develop an understandingof these different aspects of irony.

A number of studies have shown that the ability to understand the intended

meaning of ironic statements does not develop in children until about age six (e.g.,

Creusere, 2000; de Groot et al., 1995; Winner et al., 1987). This comprehension

ability appears to depend on the development of a "theory of mind," or the ability to

infer a speaker's beliefs or intentions. In particular, to understand that a statement is

meant to be ironic, one needs to infer not only what the speaker actually intends, but

also that the speaker believes that the listener understands this implied meaning as

well. Failure to make these inferences will lead to a misinterpretation of the irony as

either a literally true statement or a lie.


Kate Sullivan and her colleagues at the University of Massachusetts (Sullivan,

Winner, and Hopfield, 1995) found that children between five and eight years of agewere only able to distinguish between a lie and a humorous false statement in a

story if they had already developed the theory-of-mind ability to attribute second-

order ignorance (i.e., recognizing that one person in a story does not know what

another person knows). Interestingly, without this ability, even the presence of dif-

ferent vocal intonations in lies versus jokes did not enable children to recognizethat a joke was not intended as a lie. However, the more difficult theory-of-mind

ability to attribute second-order false belief (i.e., recognizing that one person in a

story misperceives what another person is thinking) was not needed for children to

be able to distinguish between a lie and a joke, indicating that only some aspects of a

theory of mind are necessary for irony comprehension (see also Winner and Leekam,

1991).

Other research has investigated the development of children's comprehension of

the pragmatic functions of irony. Shelly Dews and her colleagues (1996) at Boston

College conducted two studies to investigate children's understanding of the mutingfunction and humorous nature of ironic insults. In the first study, they presented

groups of five- and six-year-olds, eight- and nine-year-olds, and college students with

brief clips from television cartoons containing instances of ironic criticism, literal crit-

icism, and literal compliments. The participants were tested for their understandingof the intended meanings of the statements, and were asked to rate them for mean-

ness and funniness.

Consistent with other research, children's ability to understanding the implied

meaning of the ironic criticisms was found to emerge between five and six years of

age. Interestingly, the results also showed that, as soon as they were able to under-

stand the meaning of ironic criticism, children recognized that it was less mean or

insulting than literal criticism, indicating an understanding of the muting function of

irony. However, an understanding of the humorous nature of irony apparently does

not develop until some time later. It was not until the eight- to nine-year-old age

range that children began to perceive ironic insults as being funnier than literal ones.

In turn, the college students gave even higher funniness ratings to the ironic insults,

suggesting that a full appreciation of the humorous aspects of irony may not developuntil adolescence or early adulthood.

The second study extended these findings by manipulating the degree to which

ironic criticisms were subtle or obvious, and the degree to which they were presentedin a deadpan or sarcastic tone of voice. The results showed that, at all ages, moresubtle forms of indirect irony are considered more insulting than are more obvious

and direct forms. However, adults find the subtler forms of irony funnier, while chil-

dren find the more obvious forms funnier. Thus, the appreciation that a meaner

remark can also be funnier appears to develop with age. The perceived meanness and

funniness of the ironic insults were also influenced by voice intonation. At all ages, a

sincere or deadpan intonation made the irony seem less insulting and funnier than

did a sarcastic intonation. A sarcastic tone of voice seems to convey annoyance,whereas a deadpan or sincere intonation signals playfulness and humor.

HUMOR AS EMOTIONAL COPING 24

More recently, Melanie Harris and Penny Pexman (2003), at the University of

Calgary, investigated the development of children's understanding of the social func-

tions of ironic compliments as well as criticisms. Children ages five to eight were pre-

sented with puppet shows depicting ironic and literal criticisms and compliments. Theresults with ironic and literal criticisms generally replicated the findings of Dews et

al. (1996), indicating that children recognize the muting function of ironic criticism

as soon as they begin understanding the implied meaning, but the recognition of

humor in ironic criticism does not begin until some time later. Indeed, even the older

children in this sample did not perceive the ironic criticism to be funny.

With regard to ironic compliments, the results revealed that only a minority of

children correctly interpreted the implied meaning, and the proportion of correct

responses did not increase between ages five and eight. Thus, comprehension of ironic

compliments seems to develop at a later age than comprehension of ironic criticisms.

One possible explanation for this finding is that children may be more likely to

encounter sarcasm than ironic compliments in their daily lives. Alternatively, it maybe because ironic compliments involve a double negation, which is likely more diffi-

cult to understand.

In addition, this study revealed that children rated ironic compliments as less nice

than literal compliments as soon as they were able to understand them, indicating

that, as with ironic criticism, the muting function of irony is recognized early on.

However, across all the age groups, there were no differences in the funniness ratings

of ironic and literal compliments, both of which were rated as being serious, indicat-

ing that the humorous aspects of ironic compliments are not appreciated by children

in this age range. Further research with children older than eight years of age is

needed to determine the age at which children begin to perceive humor in this form

of irony.

In summary, by investigating the development of children's comprehension of the

meaning and pragmatic functions of irony and sarcasm, researchers are beginning to

extend the study of cognitive aspects of humor development beyond canned jokes,

cartoons, and riddles, and into conversational forms of humor that frequently occur

in everyday interactions with others. These types ofhumor depend more on the social

context, and require an understanding of a variety of linguistic and social factors such

as speaker intentions, theory of mind, vocal intonation, and so on. In addition to ironyand sarcasm, further research is needed to explore the development of children's

ability to understand and appreciate other forms of verbal and nonverbal interper-

sonal humor. As well as furthering our understanding of children's humor develop-

ment, research in this area may yield interesting insights into the development of

social cognition more generally.

HUMOR AS EMOTIONAL COPING

Besides the cognitive aspects of humor, a number of developmental researchers

have suggested that humor serves as a method for children to cope with emotionally


arousing and threatening topics. By joking and laughing about issues that normallyarouse feelings of anxiety and tension, children are able to feel less threatened and

gain a sense of mastery. As we have seen, Freud (1960 [1905]) suggested that jokes

are a way of expressing taboo topics relating to sex and aggression in a socially accept-

able manner, allowing the individual to release feelings of anxiety associated with these

topics. Similarly, Levine (1977) extended the idea of humor as a form of cognitive

mastery (discussed earlier) to suggest that humor and laughter are a way of asserting

mastery in emotional and interpersonal, as well as cognitive, domains.

In her psychoanalytically-based case studies of humor in children, Wolfenstein

(1954) noted that much of children's humor relates to potentially painful, anxiety-

arousing, or guilt-inducing topics such as death, violence, destruction, punishment,

illness, bodily functions, sexuality, and stupidity. By engaging in the playful fantasy of

humor, the child is able to transform a threatening situation into something to be

laughed at and enjoyed. Writing about play more generally, Sutton-Smith (2003) sug-

gested that "play can be defined as behavioral parody of emotional vulnerability

because it both mimics and inverts the primary emotions ironically" (p. 13). Theessential function of play, he suggested, "is to make fun of the emotional vulnerabil-

ities of anger, fear, shock, disgust, loneliness, and narcissism" (p. 13). Humor, as a

form of mental play, presumably serves these functions as well.

Loeb and Wood (1986) outlined a developmental model of humor based on

Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development, suggesting that humor may be

one method of dealing with conflicts arising from the successive developmental crises

of trust versus mistrust, autonomy versus shame, initiative versus guilt, industry versus

inferiority, and so on. Similarly, Paul McGhee (1979) noted that the topics that chil-

dren are most likely to make jokes and laugh about at different ages are ones that are

commonly associated with tensions, conflicts, and anxieties at each stage of develop-ment. For young children going through the trials and tribulations of toilet training,

when toilet-related activities and accidents increasingly become sources of emotional

tension, a great deal of laughter is generated by scatological humor relating to defe-

cation, urination, flatulence, and so on. The mere repetition of toilet-related words

("poo-poo," "pee-pee," "fart") is enough to produce howls of laughter.

As preschoolers become aware of and concerned about physical differences

between the sexes, this also becomes a topic for joking. Continuing feelings of con-

flict and tension about sexual activity throughout childhood and into adulthood con-

tribute to the ongoing popularity of sexual jokes. The strong emphasis placed on

intellectual achievement and rationality during the school years also produces anxi-

eties about intellectual performance, leading to a great deal of joking about stupidity

and irrational behavior. The use of humor to cope with potentially threatening topics

is also seen in the popularity among children and adolescents of "sick" jokes, "dead

baby" jokes, and "disgusting" or "gross-out" humor in movies and television programs

depicting flatulence, projectile vomiting, and other bodily functions (Herzog and

Bush, 1994; Herzog and Karafa, 1998; Oppliger and Zillmann, 1997).

Although a considerable amount of research has examined the role of humor in

coping in adults (which I will discuss in Chapter 9), empirical research on children's

use of humor in emotional coping is unfortunately very limited (R. A. Martin, 1989).

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN 249

Danish psychologist Martin Fiihr (2002) administered the Coping Humor Scale

(CHS) along with a questionnaire about the uses of humor in coping to 960 children

between the ages of 10 and 16 years. Factor analyses revealed three factors: (1) the

use of humor to cope with uncertainty and stress; (2) aggressive humor making fun

of others; and (3) humor as a means of improving one's mood. Boys were found to

use more aggressive forms of humor in coping, whereas girls were more likely to

report using humor as a mood booster. The use of humor for coping with uncertainty

and stress increased with age for both boys and girls. With increasing age, girls were

more likely to report using humor as a mood booster, whereas boys' reported use of

this function of humor decreased slightly. Further research is needed to examine the

effectiveness of different types of humor in coping with various sources of emotional

distress, as well as developmental changes in the use of humor for coping beginningearlier in childhood.

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN

As we have seen, humor and laughter are essentially social phenomena. Infants

begin to laugh in the context of interactions with their caregivers, and most of the

laughter of preschool children occurs when they are with other children or adults.

The predominantly interpersonal nature of humor is also apparent as children

progress through the elementary and high school years. Besides being a form of play,

humor is an important aspect of interpersonal interaction and communication, serving

a variety of social functions (Chapman, Smith, and Foot, 1980). As noted in Chapter

5, the inherent incongruity and ambiguity of humor makes it useful for communi-

cating messages and influencing others in situations in which a more direct, serious

mode of communication might be problematic for a variety of reasons.

Simons and colleagues discussed a number of possible functions ofhumor in chil-

dren's social interactions from infancy through adolescence (Simons, McCluskey-

Fawcett, and Papini, 1986). In infants, humorous interactions with parents may play

a role in the development of attachment relationships, which have been shown to be

very important for later social and emotional development (Ainsworth, Bell, and

Stayton, 1991). Humor may be one way of coping with separation anxiety and assert-

ing oneself during the process of gaining greater autonomy during toddlerhood.

During middle childhood, it may be important for socialization, establishing and

maintaining peer groups, communicating and enforcing norms, and influencing

social status within groups. These functions continue into adolescence, where

humor also becomes important in negotiating sexual relationships. These ideas remain

largely speculative at present, however, as little research has been conducted on the

social functions of humor in children or the way these functions develop throughchildhood and adolescence. Much of the early research on social aspects of humorfocused on how the presence of other children influences a child's perceptions of

humor. More recently, research on teasing has begun to address the social aspects of

aggressive types of humor. These research topics are discussed in the following

sections.

8 THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

Social Influences on Humor Appreciation and Laughter

A considerable amount of research has shown that the amount of laughter that

children display in response to humor is influenced by various aspects of the social

situation. For example, the effects of modeling on children's laughter were demon-

strated by an experiment that found that preschool children laughed much more fre-

quently while listening to a humorous audiotape after they had observed another child

laughing at the same tape as compared to a condition in which the other child did

not laugh at the tape (G. E. Brown, Wheeler, and Cash, 1980).

In a series of experiments during the 1970s, Antony Chapman, at the Universityof Wales, examined the effects of social context on humorous laughter in children (for

a review of this research, see Chapman, 1983). In one study (Chapman, 1973b), seven-

year-old children listened to a humorous audiotape on headphones either by them-

selves ("alone" condition), with a nonlistening companion of the same age and sex

("audience" condition), or with another child who was also listening to the same tape

("coaction" condition). The participants in the coaction condition laughed and smiled

more frequently and rated the tape as funnier than did those in the audience condi-

tion, who in turn displayed more mirth and higher funniness ratings than did those

in the alone condition. These results indicate that the perception and enjoyment of

humor are facilitated by the mere presence of another person, and even more so whenthe other person also shares the humor experience.

A subsequent study showed that the amount of laughter exhibited by children

while listening to a humorous audiotape was directly related to the frequency of laugh-ter in a companion (Chapman and Wright, 1976). Other experiments revealed that

children laughed and smiled more frequently at the tape when they were sitting closer

to the companion (Chapman, 197 5 a) and when they were sitting face-to-face with the

companion rather than back-to-back (Chapman, 1976). Another experiment showed

that children in small groups laugh and smile more at a humorous audiotape whentheir companions look at them while laughing as compared to when they look at

someone else (Chapman, 1975b). These studies provide further evidence that laugh-ter is primarily a form of social communication, and that sharing the social situation

with others facilitates the enjoyment of humor.

Teasing Among Children

Children become aware of the aggressive uses of humor at an early age. As early

as age three, the presence of aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior is a potentfactor in determining children's perceptions of humor (Sinnott and Ross, 1976), and

aggression continues to be an important determinant of humor preferences through-out childhood (Pinderhughes and Zigler, 1985). For example, by age three, boys showa preference for humor that disparages girls rather than boys (McGhee and Lloyd,

1981). As soon as children begin to develop a strong positive sense of racial-ethnic

identity between three and six years of age, they begin to enjoy humor that dispar-

ages members of other racial-ethnic groups (McGhee and Duffey, 1983). Children

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN 2!

also learn at an early age about the coercive effects of humorous ridicule. By six yearsof age, children will avoid behaviors for which they have observed others beingridiculed in a humorous way (Bryant et al., 1983).

Teasing is an aggressive form of humor that occurs frequently in childhood.

According to Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991), teasing comprises three com-

ponents: aggression, humor, and ambiguity (see also Keltner et al., 2001). As noted

in Chapter 5, the humorous and ambiguous nature of teasing allows the source to say

things that would be face-threatening and potentially unacceptable if communicated

in a serious mode, since the source can always say "I was just joking" if the commu-nication is not well received by the target. The aggressive and humorous elements of

teasing may be combined in different proportions. When the aggressive component

predominates, teasing is perceived as more hostile and hurtful, whereas teasing con-

taining greater humor may be perceived as benign and enjoyed by the target as well

as the source.

Jeremy Shapiro and colleagues (1991), at the Child Guidance Center in Cleve-

land, asked children in grades three, five, and eight to describe their experiences of

teasing and being teased. The most commonly reported forms of teasing were makingfun of an attribute or behavior of the target (28 percent), calling the target humor-

ous names (25 percent), and simply laughing at the target (11 percent). The most

common topics of teasing were physical appearance (especially being fat), intellectual

performance (especially stupidity, but also being too smart in school), and physical

performance. The most common reasons given for teasing were retaliation (i.e.,

teasing in response to someone else's teasing) and playing or joking around. In addi-

tion, 5 1 percent of the participants identified aggressive bullies as the most frequent

teasers, whereas 23 percent identified popular, funny, lively children. The most fre-

quent targets of teasing were timid, physically small "losers," unpopular children,

overweight children, and children with lower intelligence. Thus, teasing seems to be

carried out by socially dominant children against those with less social status who do

not conform to group norms. Overall, teasing seems to be a way of asserting and main-

taining status within the peer group as well as censuring behaviors in others that

violate group norms.

A limited amount of research has examined developmental changes in the content

and form of teasing in childhood. Given the function of teasing as a way of enforc-

ing social norms, it is not surprising that developmental changes in teasing tend to

parallel changes in the types of norms that are most relevant at different ages, such

as possessiveness and aggression during the preschool years, associations with

members of the opposite sex during elementary school, fashion-related and datingbehavior in puberty, and behaviors related to experimentation with sex and drug use

during adolescence and early adulthood (Keltner et al., 2001; Warm, 1997).

The style of teasing also changes over the course of development. In particular,

teasing tends to become less blatantly aggressive, more humorous and playful, and

more subtle as individuals move from late childhood into adolescence (Keltner et al.,

2001; Warm, 1997). These changes may be partly related to developments in the com-

prehension of irony and sarcasm discussed earlier. As we saw, recognition of the


humorous aspects of ironic language does not develop until late childhood and ado-

lescence, even though the potential for using irony to convey indirect criticism is rec-

ognized by age six. Younger children are therefore less able to employ playful languagecues such as the use of irony to mitigate the hostility of their teasing. As a result,

younger children's teasing tends to be more overtly hostile, hurtful, and insulting. Anyhumor that is involved is often meant for the benefit of the witnesses at the expenseof the recipient (Scambler, Harris, and Milich, 1998).

These developmental changes in the style of teasing are also reflected in chil-

dren's perceptions of the functions and effects of teasing. Although children of all ages

emphasize the hurtful nature of teasing, older children and adolescents begin to rec-

ognize that it can sometimes also have positive functions and outcomes, such as point-

ing out undesirable behaviors in a playful way and indirectly communicating

acceptance and friendship (Shapiro et al., 1991; Warm, 1997).

Some researchers have investigated how children respond to teasing and have

attempted to identify the types of responses that might be most effective. In the survey

by Shapiro et al. (1991), the most common response to teasing reported by children

was reciprocating teasing with a verbal comeback or teasing of their own (39 percent),

followed by ignoring the teasing (24 percent), laughing along (12 percent), fighting

(10 percent), and reporting the teasing to an authority figure (4 percent). When teach-

ers were asked what they considered to be the most effective response to teasing, 91

percent recommended simply ignoring the teaser.

Douglas Scambler and colleagues (1998), at the University of Kentucky, con-

ducted an experiment in which they showed children between the ages of 8 and 1 1

one of three versions of a videotape in which a child responded in different ways to

being teased by other children: (1) ignoring; (2) an angry, hostile response; and (3) a

humorous response. The participants rated the humorous response as most likely to

be effective, followed by ignoring, with the hostile response being rated as least effec-

tive. Interestingly, the humorous response produced more positive evaluations of the

teaser as well as the recipient of the teasing. Thus, responding with humor may be

even more effective than ignoring, as it might defuse the conflict situation and poten-

tially turn it into a prosocial interaction. The authors suggested that children who are

frequent targets of teasing should be taught to practice lighthearted, humorous

responses to use in such situations. Similar results were obtained in a subsequent

experiment by Robin Lightner and colleagues that looked at empathic responding as

well as ignoring, humorous, and hostile reactions to teasing (Lightner et al., 2000).

Further research is needed to examine actual interactions, instead of artificial

scenarios, to capture the emotional elements in teasing situations and examine the

effectiveness of various responses with different types of teasing among children of

different ages and personality characteristics.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR

So far in this chapter I have been discussing developmental changes in humorthat are characteristic of most children. However, children do not all develop a sense


of humor to the same degree; the individual differences in humor that we discussed

in the previous chapter begin to emerge in early childhood. Besides studying norma-

tive trends in humor development, researchers have therefore also investigated the

ways children at a given age differ from one another in the degree to which they ini-

tiate and appreciate humor. Why do some children more than others develop a ten-

dency to laugh easily and frequently, a heightened enjoyment of humor, or an ability

to tell jokes and make others laugh? To what extent do genetic and environmental

factors influence the development of a sense of humor? How do parental behaviors

and the family environment contribute to humor development in children? Whatother personality characteristics and behaviors are associated with a sense of humorin children at various ages? These are some of the sorts of questions regarding indi-

vidual differences in children's humor that researchers have sought to answer.

As we saw in Chapter 7, sense of humor is not a unitary concept. Individual dif-

ferences in sense of humor can be conceptualized and measured in many different

ways, including differences in the frequency of laughter, ability to comprehend humor,

appreciation of various kinds of humorous stimuli, tendency to initiate humor and

make others laugh, and so on. These different definitions of sense of humor are

reflected in the various measurement approaches taken by different researchers in

studying individual differences in children's humor as well. Research findings that

relate to the development of one of these components of sense of humor do not nec-

essarily apply to others.

Genetic Factors in Sense of Humor

In recent decades, numerous twin studies have provided evidence that geneticfactors play a substantial role in individual differences in temperament and personal-

ity generally (Rowe, 1997). The general strategy in this research involves comparingthe correlations on a particular personality trait between pairs of monozygotic (i.e.,

identical) and dizygotic (i.e., fraternal) twins. A genetic contribution to the trait is

indicated when higher correlations are found in identical as compared to fraternal

twin pairs. Using multivariate statistical modeling procedures, the relative contribu-

tion of genetic as well as shared and nonshared environmental influences can be esti-

mated. Shared environmental influences are those that are experienced similarly byboth members of a twin pair, such as the general family environment, whereas non-

shared influences have to do with experiences that differ between a pair of twins both

within and outside the family. A few of these types of studies have been conducted to

examine the degree to which genetic and environmental factors may contribute to the

development of various aspects of the sense of humor.

David Nias and Glenn Wilson (1977), at the Institute of Psychiatry in London,used the classic twin study methodology to investigate individual differences in humor

appreciation in 100 pairs of young adult identical and fraternal twins. The partici-

pants were asked to rate the funniness of 48 cartoons that had been classified as non-

sense, satirical, aggressive, or sexual. The correlations between the pairs of twins for

each category of humor averaged about .45, but did not differ between the fraternal

and identical twins, indicating that individual differences in the appreciation of these

>4 8 THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR

humor categories do not appear to have a genetic basis. On the other hand, the sizable

magnitude of the average correlations indicated that environmental influences shared

by both members of a pair play a fairly substantial role in the development of their

humor preferences. Thus, shared environmental influences, such as the effects of

being raised within a particular family, appear to play a more important role than

genetic factors in determining the degree to which individuals enjoy particular types

of humor. A subsequent more detailed analysis of the same data led to similar con-

clusions (G. D. Wilson, Rust, and Kasriel, 1977).

In a more recent twin study by Lynn Cherkas and colleagues at St. Thomas Hos-

pital in London, 127 pairs of female twins (71 monozygotic and 56 dizygotic) ages 20

to 75 were asked to rate the funniness of five Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson

(Cherkas et al., 2000). As we saw in the last chapter, these rather bizarre, "off-the-

wall" cartoons have been found in previous research to load on Ruch's (1992) non-

sense factor of humor appreciation, as opposed to the incongruity-resolution factor.

The results replicated the earlier findings of Nias and Wilson (1977). Whereas sig-

nificant correlations were found between the pairs of twins on the funniness ratings

of each of the five cartoons, these correlations did not differ between the fraternal

and identical twins, indicating no genetic contribution to individual differences in the

enjoyment of these cartoons. Multivariate model-fitting analyses confirmed that the

data were best explained by a model that allowed for the contribution of both shared

and nonshared environmental factors, but not genetic effects. Thus, this study pro-vided further evidence that a sense of humor, when defined as the appreciation of par-ticular types of humor, develops primarily as a result of environmental influences both

within and outside the family of origin.

Besides the humor appreciation approach, another way of thinking about the

sense of humor construct is to view it as a temperament-based affective trait. As wesaw in Chapter 7, Willibald Ruch and his colleagues have proposed that individual

differences in humor may be conceptualized in terms of temperamental differences

in cheerfulness (e.g., Ruch and Kohler, 1998). Temperament refers to relatively stable

characteristics of response to the environment, such as activity level, sociability, and

emotionality, which are observed in infants as early as the first months of life (A. H.

Buss and Plomin, 1984). To explore possible genetic and environmental factors in

temperament, researchers at the University of Wisconsin (Goldsmith et al., 1999)conducted a study of 302 pairs of 3- to 16-month-old infant twins (121 identical and

181 fraternal). Several dimensions of temperament were assessed by means of mater-

nal ratings on a standardized questionnaire, as well as laboratory observations. Factor

analysis of the temperament variables revealed two main factors: (1) positive affectiv-

ity, composed of frequency of smiling and laughter, duration of orienting, and sooth-

ability; and (2) negative affectivity, composed of distress in response to limitations and

novelty, and activity level. The positive affectivity factor seems to be most relevant to

Ruch's concept of trait cheerfulness and sense of humor in general, whereas negative

affectivity likely corresponds to neuroticism and Ruch's concept of trait bad mood.Multivariate model-fitting analyses revealed that positive affectivity was best

explained by a model that included additive genetic (40 percent), shared environ-

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR 2!

mental (34 percent), and nonshared environmental effects (25 percent). Very similar

results were obtained when the frequency of smiling and laughter was analyzed sep-

arately. Thus, the degree to which an infant tends to respond with smiling and laugh-

ter, as well as his or her overall positive emotionality, appears to be influenced byboth genetic and environmental factors. Of particular interest here is the rinding of

a shared environmental component, indicating that children's positive affectivity is

partly influenced by factors that are common to children within the same family, such

as maternal personality or attachment security. Similar findings of shared environ-

mental effects on positive emotionality have been found in other twin studies of

infants, preschoolers, and adults (Goldsmith, Buss, and Lemery, 1997; Tellegen et al.,

1988).

On the other hand, the analyses revealed that negative affectivity was best

explained by a model containing only additive genetic (64 percent) and nonshared

environmental effects (36 percent). Thus, negative emotionality also appears to be

influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. However, the environmental

influences in this case are not those that are shared by all children within the same

family, but instead have to do with ways in which children in the same family mayhave different experiences. In summary, this study indicates that sense of humor, whenviewed as an emotional temperament trait, is influenced by both genetic and envi-

ronmental factors.

In addition to research on humor appreciation and emotional temperament, two

studies have investigated genetic and environmental contributions to sense of humor

using self-report humor measures. In an early twin study, identical and fraternal ado-

lescent twins were asked to rate the degree to which they felt they had a good sense

of humor on a 7-point scale (Loehlin and Nichols, 1976). A significantly larger cor-

relation was found between identical as compared to fraternal twins, suggesting a

genetic contribution to individual differences in self-rated humor. A very weak cor-

relation for fraternal twins indicated that environmental influences are of the non-

shared rather than the shared variety.

The second study, described by Beth Manke (1998), at the University of Houston,examined individual differences in interpersonal humor expression in adolescents.

Instead of using pairs of identical and fraternal twins, however, this study made use

of pairs of adolescent siblings who had been raised in the same families but were either

nonadopted (therefore sharing approximately 50 percent of their genes) or adoptedat birth (therefore not sharing any genes). As in the twin studies, a larger correlation

between nonadopted compared to adopted sibling pairs would indicate a genetic

effect. A self-report questionnaire was used to assess the degree to which each par-

ticipant typically engaged in humor and laughter (e.g., telling jokes and funny stories,

laughing or joking about embarrassing or upsetting events, laughing at comedy movies

and television programs) in their relationships with their mother, their sibling, and

their best friend.

Multivariate model-fitting analyses revealed that a significant proportion (over 25

percent) of the variance in humor use with mothers and siblings can be attributed to

genetic factors. In contrast, genetic influences were negligible for use of humor in


relating to best friends. The author suggested that the lack of a genetic contribution

to humor in interactions with friends may have been due to the shorter duration of

these relationships. Genetic influences may become more apparent in longer-term

relationships in which humor patterns have become more stabilized. In addition, the

analyses revealed a sizable environmental influence on humor use with mothers, sib-

lings, and friends (accounting for over 50 percent of the variance). These effects were

of the nonshared variety, suggesting that growing up in the same family does not make

siblings similar in their humor expression.

Overall, then, this research suggests that a sense of humor is a product of both

genetics and environment, with the relative contributions of these two types of influ-

ence varying with different components of this trait. When sense of humor is defined

in terms of the appreciation of particular types of humorous material, genetic influ-

ences appear to be negligible, and most of the variance can be attributed to both

shared and unshared environmental effects. The types of things people laugh at are

determined primarily by their past experiences within and outside their family of

origin. When a temperament-based approach is taken, defining sense of humor in

terms of positive emotionality and the tendency to laugh and smile frequently, geneticfactors appear to play a more significant role, although both shared and unshared envi-

ronmental influences are also important. Finally, a sizable genetic contribution, as well

as nonshared environment influences, is found with self-report measures assessing

overall sense of humor and the tendency to engage in humorous interactions with

family members. Interestingly, there seem to be differences in the degree to which

genetic factors contribute to humor expression in different relationships, with humorin relating to peers showing less genetic contribution than with family members. It is

important to note that these studies allow for the estimation of the overall effects of

genetic and environmental influences, but they are not able to identify the specific

genes or environmental factors that are responsible for individual differences in

humor. Further research is needed to address these questions.

Family Environment Factors in Sense of Humor Development

These heritability studies suggest that, although genetics play a role, environ-

mental factors are also important in the development of most dimensions of sense of

humor. One influential aspect of the environment is the family. Children likely learn

to express and enjoy humor in the context of their early relationships with their

parents and other family members. Two competing hypotheses have been proposed

concerning the way interactions with parents may influence the development of a

sense of humor, referred to as the modeling/reinforcement and the stress and coping

hypotheses (Manke, 1998). According to the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis,

parents who enjoy humor themselves and who laugh and joke a good deal serve as

humorous role models and are likely to positively reinforce their children's attemptsat humor initiation, leading to greater humor and laughter in the children (McGhee,Bell, and Duffey, 1986). On the other hand, the Stress and Coping Hypothesis sug-


gests that a sense of humor may develop in children as a way of coping with distress,

conflict, and anxiety in an uncongenial family environment. For these children, humor

may be a way of releasing hostile feelings or gaining attention and approval from

parents who are otherwise rejecting and nonnurturing (McGhee, 1980b). There is

some research evidence in support of both of these hypotheses.Paul McGhee (1980b) described a study of nursery school and elementary school

children at the Fels Research Institute in Ohio, in which observational ratings were

obtained for the children's frequency of laughter and behavioral and verbal attemptsto initiate humor during peer interactions in free-play sessions. Because these chil-

dren were part of an ongoing longitudinal study, data were also available on a number

of measures of antecedent maternal behaviors that had been assessed during their

infancy and earlier childhood. In support of the stress and coping hypothesis, corre-

lational analyses with the nursery school children revealed that those who showed

greater amounts of humor tended to have mothers who babied and overprotectedthem but showed little affection and closeness.

Among both boys and girls at the elementary school age, greater humor expres-

sion was associated with a greater tendency of mothers to leave the children alone to

solve problems on their own, even when some assistance would have been appropri-ate. Greater humor in elementary school girls was also related to a lack of maternal

protectiveness and a home environment characterized by conflict, unpleasantness,

repression, and insecurity. Thus, the development of a sense of humor in children

seemed to be associated with rather uncongenial parental behaviors toward the chil-

dren. No relation was found between children's humor behaviors and their mothers'

own tendency to engage in humor during interactions with the child, casting doubt

on the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis.Further support for the Stress and Coping Hypothesis was provided by a study

of male adolescents conducted at Vanderbilt University (Prasinos and Tittler, 1981).

Using a peer nomination technique, the participants were divided into humor-ori-

ented, moderately humor-oriented, and non-humor-oriented groups. Individuals in

the humor-oriented group, as compared to those in the other two groups, reported

significantly less cohesion and greater conflict in their families on a family environ-

ment measure and significantly greater distance from their father in a figure-

placement test.

The research by Fisher and Fisher (1981) on professional comedians and comic

children, described in Chapter 7, also lends support to the Stress and Coping Hypoth-esis. Professional comedians described their relationships with their mothers as more

negative than did noncomic entertainers. Questionnaire data also revealed that the

mothers of comic children, as compared with mothers of noncomic children, were

significantly less kind, less sympathetic, less close and intimately involved with their

children, and more selfish and controlling, and they wanted their children to take

responsibility and grow up more quickly. Taken together, these studies provide some

support for the view that children may develop a sense of humor as a way of copingwith feelings of anger and anxiety, and as a means of gaining attention and approval

from parents who are otherwise distant and unsupportive.


On the other hand, some support for the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesiswas found in a study by Paul McGhee and colleagues (1986) at Texas Tech Univer-

sity. Male and female university students and a group of elderly women completed a

self-report measure of humor initiation as well as a questionnaire about their parents'

tendency to engage in humor when they were growing up. Among male students,

humor initiation was positively correlated with father's humor, whereas female stu-

dents showed a positive correlation between laughter responsiveness and mother's

humor. Among the elderly women, those with higher scores on humor initiation and

laughter responsiveness reported that their mothers engaged in higher levels ofjoking,

clowning, and playful teasing when the participants were growing up. No significant

correlations were found between participants' humor scores and the modeling of

humor by the opposite-sex parent. These findings suggested that the greatest early

modeling influences on humor development may come from the same-sex parent.

However, these findings should be viewed as rather tentative, since they were based

on recall data that may be subject to memory biases.

Overall, the existing research seems to lend stronger support to the Stress and

Coping Hypothesis than to the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis. However, more

thorough investigation is required before firm conclusions may be drawn. Most of the

evidence to date is based on studies with small sample sizes, and the Modeling/Rein-forcement Hypothesis in particular has not been adequately investigated. Future

research should examine possible effects of family environment and parental behav-

iors on a broader range of aspects of children's sense of humor, and the possibility of

curvilinear relationships should also be examined.

In the end, there may be some validity to both the Modeling/Reinforcement and

the Stress and Coping hypotheses. Some children raised in uncongenial family envi-

ronments may develop a sense of humor to cope and gain acceptance, especially if

they learn that their humorous behaviors are positively reinforced by attention and

approval from parents who are otherwise harsh and unaffectionate. Other children,

who are raised in more secure and nurturing environments, may develop a sense of

humor as a consequence of parental modeling and reinforcement. As we have seen in

previous chapters, humor serves a variety of different social functions, and there are

likely to be several different pathways in the development of individual differences in

humor.

An additional weakness of this research is that it does not control for possible

genetic confounds in the observed relations. Any associations that are found between

parents' behavior and their children's later sense of humor may be due to the genesthat are shared by parents and children rather than to causal effects of the parental

behavior on the child's sense of humor. One way to test for this possibility is to

compare the associations between family environment and children's sense of humorin adoptive and nonadoptive families. If a stronger relation is found for nonadoptivethan for adoptive children, this would suggest that the effect is at least partially medi-

ated by the greater genetic similarity between parents and nonadopted children.

This approach was taken in a study reported by Beth Manke (1998) that investi-

gated the relation between family environment variables and interpersonal humor


expression in male and female adolescents who were either raised by their biological

parents or were adopted at birth. In this longitudinal study (part of which was

described in the previous section), the general family environment and maternal par-

enting practices had been assessed when the adolescents were 9 to 1 1 years of age bymeans of questionnaires completed by the mothers. The data analyses revealed onlya few significant correlations between these family environment measures and meas-

ures of interpersonal humor that were completed several years later by the adoles-

cents. The results provided weak and somewhat contradictory support for the Stress

and Coping Hypothesis.Of particular interest to the present discussion, though, was the finding that any

significant associations that did emerge occurred only with the nonadopted children

and not with the adopted children. This finding suggests that associations between

the family environment and children's sense of humor development may be geneti-

cally mediated, rather than being a direct causal effect. In other words, certain com-

binations of genes (which are passed from parents to their biological children) maycontribute both to particular parenting practices and to the development of a sense

of humor in children, whereas these parenting practices might not directly influence

sense of humor development. These conclusions are only tentative, however, since

this is the only study of this kind conducted so far, the sample size was fairly small,

and the parenting behaviors were assessed only during middle childhood.

Further research along these lines is clearly needed, using a variety of approachesto measure sense of humor in children, and broader, more objective assessments of

parental behaviors and family environment beginning at an earlier age in the chil-

dren's development. An alternative method of controlling for the confounding effects

of genetics in studying effects of parenting on children's sense of humor is the "chil-

dren of twins" design, which compares parent-child associations in identical versus

fraternal twins and their offspring (D'Onofrio et al., 2003).

Personality and Behavioral Correlates of Children's Sense of Humor

What other personality traits, abilities, and behaviors are associated with havinga sense of humor in children? Once again, the answer depends in part on how wedefine sense of humor. Several studies have investigated individual differences in chil-

dren's tendency to initiate humor and make other children laugh in the playgroundand classroom. Associations between these humor initiation measures and various

other interpersonal behaviors, traits, and abilities have been examined in children of

different ages. In one study of four- and five-year-old nursery school children, those

who were rated by their teachers as being more likely to initiate humor in interac-

tions with peers were found to have more advanced language skills and were rated bytheir mothers as having a temperament characterized by greater activity and approach,

rather than social withdrawal (Carson et al., 1986).

In the longitudinal study by Paul McGhee (1980b) discussed earlier, associations

were examined between children's general interpersonal behavior during free play in

their preschool years and their later frequency of verbal and behavioral humor


initiation and laughter with peers when they were either in nursery school or ele-

mentary school. Among nursery-school-age children, those who engaged in more fre-

quent laughter and initiation of humor had previously been observed to engage in

more frequent unprovoked verbal and physical aggression and retaliation to aggres-

sion with their peers. More humorous children also tended to be those who were taller

and heavier and who had exerted more effort on mastery of gross-motor skills (which

are particularly involved in physical play activities seen in the playground) and less

effort on intellectual activities and mastery of fine-motor skills (which are needed for

writing, art, and other academic activities observed in the classroom). In addition,

while unrelated to overall intelligence, greater verbal humor initiation was observed

in children who had developed better language abilities at an earlier age. Overall, these

findings suggest that humorous behavior with peers in nursery school children occurs

particularly in aggressive, physically large, active children with better gross-motorthan fine-motor skills and precocious language development.

Similar patterns were observed with the elementary school children. Among both

boys and girls, those who engaged in greater amounts of verbal and nonverbal humorinitiation and who were rated by observers as having a greater sense of humor tended

to be those who had previously been rated as being more physically and verbally

aggressive, more dominant, and exerting more effort on activities requiring gross-

motor rather than fine-motor skills. High-humor children also tended to have had

more precocious speech development and better language skills, and were rated byobservers as being more creative at an early age (McGhee, 1980a). In addition, theywere rated as seeking more help, attention, and affection from adults, and were more

likely to engage in imitation during play. By elementary school, greater humor was

no longer associated with weight or height, although it was still related to greater

social dominance.

A study by Sandra Damico and William Purkey (1978), at the University of

Florida, examined personality traits of 96 eighth-grade children in 10 different junior

high schools who were identified by their classmates as being "class clowns" (i.e., stu-

dents who "joke and clown around a lot" and "make others laugh"). In comparisonwith a randomly selected group of nonclown classmates, the class clowns (who were

much more likely to be male than female) were rated by their teachers as being

higher in social assertiveness, cheerfulness, and leadership, but also more unruly and

attention-seeking, and less likely to complete their academic work. On a measure of

self-concept, class clowns were more likely to describe themselves as leaders, vocal in

expressing ideas and opinions, confident about speaking up in class, satisfied with

themselves, and self-confident. However, they also rated themselves as being less well-

understood by their parents and displayed more negative attitudes toward their teach-

ers and principal.

Although humorous children may be perceived by their teachers as somewhat

unruly and disruptive, other studies indicate that they tend to be very popular with

their classmates. Lawrence Sherman (1988), at Miami University in Ohio, had chil-

dren in three fourth-grade classes rate the sense of humor and the degree to which

they liked the other children in their class. The mean liking ratings for each child


were used to compute a measure of the child's social distance within the class. Astrong correlation was found between the mean humor ratings and social distance

scores, indicating that children who were perceived to have a better sense of humorwere more well-liked by their peers. This association between perceived humorand social distance was stronger among same-sex peers than among opposite-sexclassmates.

These findings were replicated in a subsequent study using classes of 9-, 12-, and

15-year-old children (Warners-Kleverlaan, Oppenheimer, and Sherman, 1996). Thelatter study revealed that, among 12- and 15 -year-olds, the association between sense

of humor and social distance became equally strong for cross-gender and within-

gender ratings. Thus, as children enter adolescence and begin to take a stronger inter-

est in members of the opposite sex, a sense of humor seems to be an important

component of one's popularity with both sexes. This study also indicated that pre-adolescent children tend to define a sense of humor in terms of funny actions and

joke-telling, whereas adolescents define it more in terms of witty verbal skills.

Some additional research suggests that the pattern of behavioral and personalitycorrelates of the tendency to initiate humor with peers may change as individuals

progress into adolescence. Michael Fabrizi and Howard Pollio (1987b), at the Uni-

versity of Tennessee, observed children in grades 3, 7, and 11 during classroom

periods, and coded how frequently each child initiated humor and made other chil-

dren laugh. No differences were found between boys and girls in the frequency of

humor initiation. Among children in grade three, the frequency of humor initiation

was unrelated to the children's general classroom behavior or their interactions with

their teachers.

However, by grade seven, children who engaged in more frequent humor initia-

tion tended to be those who were generally more disruptive in class, calling out rather

than raising their hands for permission to speak, frequently leaving their seat, inter-

acting more often with peers, and spending less time doing their school work. Not

surprisingly, the more humorous children were also more likely to receive disapprovaland reprimands for off-target behavior from their teachers. Although the pattern of

correlations was similar in grade 11, humor in these older children seemed to be some-

what less disruptive. The authors concluded that, whereas humor initiation in grade7 seemed to be part of a constellation of acting-out behaviors, by grade 1 1 it seemed

to be associated with being a popular child who knows the rules of the classroom and

is sought out by his or her peers.

In a subsequent study, Fabrizi and Pollio (1987a) found that children in gradeseven who engaged in more frequent humor initiation in the classroom and were more

frequently nominated by their peers as being "the funniest in the class" tended to have

lower scores on a measure of self-esteem. By grade 1 1, however, there was no asso-

ciation between humor initiation and self-concept. These findings seem to be incon-

sistent with the positive self concept found in class clowns in the Damico and Purkey

(1978) study, although the differences may be due to the fact that the latter study used

a more extreme group of humorous children drawn from a larger population, rather

than examining correlations within the classroom.


On the other hand, whereas no correlation was found between humor initiation

and creativity among children in grade 7, more frequent humor initiation in grade 1 1

was significantly correlated with higher scores for originality, flexibility, and elabora-

tion on a test of creative thinking as well as higher teacher ratings of creativity. These

findings suggest that being funny with peers is associated with different behaviors and

personality characteristics at these different ages. During early adolescence (grade

seven), making one's peers laugh is associated with going against authority, acting out,

being silly, and having low self-esteem. In later stages of adolescence (grade 11),

making one's peers laugh is less strongly related to disruptive behavior and low self-

esteem, and more strongly related to creativity and popularity with peers.

Although this correlational research does not permit us to draw conclusions about

causality, these studies, taken together, provide some indication of the possible devel-

opmental trajectory of children who become particularly adept at initiating humorand amusing their peers. Temperamentally outgoing and active preschoolers who are

verbally and physically aggressive learn at an early age that aggressive behavior is likely

to meet with disapproval from adults as well as rejection from peers. Those children

with strong verbal skills or gross-motor abilities may learn that a more acceptable wayof gaining acceptance from peers and minimizing disapproval from adults is to channel

these abilities into verbal and physical humor that generates laughter in others. In ele-

mentary and junior high school, the ability to make others laugh leads to increased

popularity and a position of dominance and leadership among peers, but it also

increasingly brings the child into conflict with the demands of the classroom, result-

ing in these children having a conflicted relationship with authority figures and being

perceived by teachers as disruptive and unruly. By high school, humorous children

continue to be socially dominant and assertive, but somewhat less disruptive, and as

they hone their humor abilities they also become more creative in their thinking in

general.

This description of the hypothesized course of humor development seems con-

sistent with the existing data. However, because most of the research to date has used

cross-sectional designs, we do not know for certain if the children who are most

humorous in kindergarten are the same ones who make their friends laugh in high

school, or whether different children take on this humorous role at different age levels.

Longitudinal research is needed to examine the stability of humor initiation across

childhood and adolescence.

Besides defining sense of humor in terms of humor initiation during interactions

with peers, researchers have also examined individual differences in children's humor

appreciation and their ability to comprehend and produce humor using jokes and car-

toons. Ann Masten (1986), at the University ofMinnesota, assessed the sense ofhumorof children in grades five to eight using measures of humor appreciation (funniness

ratings of cartoons), amount of laughter and smiling in response to the cartoons,

humor comprehension (ability to explain the point of the cartoons), and humor pro-duction (ability to generate witty cartoon captions). The children's social competencewas also assessed by means of teacher and peer ratings on a standardized question-

naire, and their academic competence was measured using intelligence and achieve-

ment tests.

HUMORANDAGING 2(.

With regard to social competence, children with higher levels of humor com-

prehension and production were rated by their peers as higher on sociability and lead-

ership and lower on emotional sensitivity and social isolation. They were also rated

by their teachers as showing more cooperativeness, attention, and initiative. Correla-

tions with the amount of laughter and funniness ratings of cartoons showed similar,

although somewhat weaker, patterns. With regard to academic competence, correla-

tional analyses showed that children who displayed more laughter in response to car-

toons, humor comprehension, and humor production tended to have higher IQ and

academic achievement scores. None of the humor measures were significantly corre-

lated with peer or teacher ratings of aggressiveness, oppositional behavior, or disrup-

tiveness in the classroom.

Using the same humor measures as in the Masten (1986) study, a similar pattern

of findings emerged in a subsequent investigation of social and academic competencein children ages 9 to 14 (Pellegrini et al., 1987). Factor analyses of a variety of social

and cognitive competence measures revealed that the amount of laughter in responseto cartoons, humor appreciation, comprehension, and production measures all loaded

on a "social comprehension" factor, along with measures of interpersonal under-

standing and means-ends problem solving. Thus, these sense of humor measures

formed part of a social cognition dimension involving maturity of understandingabout the social world and the ability to achieve social goals and solve interpersonal

problems. This dimension was in turn positively related to teacher and peer ratings

of social competence, popularity, friendliness, and leadership. It was also significantly

but weakly related to academic achievement. In addition, humor comprehensionand production both loaded on a factor of divergent thinking, along with measures

of creativity and cognitive reflectivity and accuracy (cf. Brodzinsky, 1975; Brodzinsky,

1977).

Overall, the findings of these two studies suggest that when sense of humor is

defined in terms of humor production ability and comprehension and appreciation of

cartoons, it tends to be positively correlated with social competence and maturity,

sociability, cooperative behaviors, academic achievement, and intellectual abilities, and

unrelated to aggressiveness and disruptive classroom behavior. Of course, the direc-

tion of causality in these correlational findings is unknown. These findings are quite

different from the pattern of correlations described earlier in research defining sense

of humor in terms of children's tendency to make their peers laugh. In that research,

humor initiation tended to be related to a history of aggressiveness, disruptive class-

room behavior, inattention to school work, and a generally conflicted relationship with

authority figures. Thus, correlations between sense of humor and particular person-

ality traits, competencies, and behaviors may be quite different, depending on the waysense of humor is defined and measured.

HUMOR AND AGING

How does the sense of humor change as people progress through adulthood

and into old age? Our discussion of humor development in this chapter has focused


particularly on the period from infancy to adolescence. However, further develop-

ments in the production, comprehension, enjoyment, and social functions of humor

likely occur throughout the lifespan, along with changes in cognitive abilities, psy-

chosocial needs and concerns, social relationships, attitudes, coping with adverse life

events, and so on. Because only a few studies have investigated humor in older adults,

however, our knowledge in this area is very limited.

A major limitation of research comparing aspects of humor in older and youngeradults is that this approach does not permit us to determine whether any observed

differences are due to developmental changes that occur with aging, or whether theyare due to cohort effects. If elderly people are found to differ from younger peoplein their humor abilities, styles, comprehension, or appreciation, this may be due to

the fact that they grew up in a different era, with different cultural norms and expec-

tations, different popular role models, different educational opportunities, and so on.

Longitudinal research, following individuals over many years, is needed to investigate

changes in humor over the course of individuals' lives. Since no studies of this kind

have been conducted, we must be cautious in our interpretation of the existing cross-

sectional research.

Some research suggests that declines in cognitive abilities in the elderly may be

associated with reduced comprehension ofhumor. A study at Purdue University found

that, among participants ages 50 to 80 years, greater age was associated with lower

comprehension but also greater appreciation (higher fanniness ratings) of jokes

(Schaier and Cicirelli, 1976). In addition, those older participants who were found to

have a reduced understanding of conservation of volume on standard Piagetian tasks

also showed lower comprehension and appreciation of jokes involving violations of

conservation, but not nonconservation jokes.

The authors concluded that these findings provide further support for the cog-nitive congruency hypothesis (discussed earlier). In the first part of life, increases in

cognitive abilities enable children to understand and appreciate more cognitively chal-

lenging forms of humor; however, as their abilities increase still more and a joke

becomes too easy, their appreciation decreases. In the later part of life, as cognitive

ability begins to decline with age, comprehension of jokes also declines. This leads to

an increased appreciation of the humor as the joke places more cognitive demand on

the individual, up to the point where he or she no longer understands the joke, when

appreciation again declines.

In a more recent study at the University of Toronto, elderly participants (mean

age= 73 years), as compared to younger people (mean age

= 29 years), made signif-

icantly more errors in selecting the humorous punch line on a joke completion test

and also made more errors in selecting the funnier cartoon when presented with pairs

of nonverbal cartoon drawings (Shammi and Stuss, 2003). In contrast, the two age

groups did not differ in their performance on a nonhumorous story completion

task, indicating an equal ability to understand narrative language. In the elderly par-

ticipants, performance on the verbal joke test was also significantly correlated with

performance on neuropsychological tests of working memory and verbal abstract

ability, while the nonverbal cartoon test was significantly related to measures of

HUMORANDAGING 2<

working memory, speed of visual scanning, mental flexibility, and visual perceptual

abilities. All of these abilities have been found in previous research to be related to

frontal lobe functioning. The deficits in performance on the verbal and nonverbal

humor tests in the elderly were much less severe, however, than those seen in patients

with right frontal lobe brain damage. With regard to humor appreciation, the

elderly participants, in comparison to the younger ones, rated humorous materials as

significantly funnier. Drawing on findings from previous brain research on humor

comprehension (discussed in Chapter 6), the authors of this study concluded that

subtle declines in frontal lobe functioning in the elderly may lead to some impair-

ment in cognitive processing of humor, while leaving the affective enjoyment of

humor intact.

To investigate age differences in humor appreciation in adults, Willibald Ruch

and colleagues (1990) examined correlations between age and humor appreciation on

the 3WD humor test in a sample of more than 4000 German participants ranging in

age from 14 to 66 years. Enjoyment of incongruity-resolution (INC-RES) humorincreased significantly across the age span in a linear fashion, whereas enjoyment of

nonsense (NON) humor decreased with age. These age differences in the enjoymentof the two categories of humor were found to be fully accounted for by a correspon-

ding increase with age in scores on a measure of conservatism. As noted in Chapter

7, greater preferences for INC-RES over NON humor are related to more conser-

vative social attitudes.

Thus, the more conservative attitudes of older as compared to younger adults are

reflected in differences in the kind ofhumor that they enjoy. In particular, older peopleare more likely to enjoy humor in which incongruity is resolved (as in most "canned"

jokes) and less likely to enjoy the more offbeat types of humor containing unresolved

incongruity. Of course, as with all of this cross-sectional research, we do not know

whether the older participants became increasingly conservative and had correspond-

ing changes in their humor appreciation over the course of their lifetime, or whether

they were always more conservative and always enjoyed INC-RES humor more than

did the group born at a later time.

Some research has also examined age differences in younger and older adults'

scores on self-report humor measures. A study using the Multidimensional Sense of

Humor Scale (MSHS) with a sample of adults ages 18 to 90 found no age differences

in overall humor scores (Thorson and Powell, 1996). However, older participants

were somewhat more likely than younger ones to report producing and appreciating

humor and using humor to cope with stress, whereas they tended to report a more

negative attitude toward humorous people. My colleagues and I also examined age

differences in scores on the Humor Styles Questionnaire in more than 1000 partici-

pants ranging in age from 14 to 87 years (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). Older adults were

found to have significantly lower scores than younger ones on both affiliative and

aggressive humor, indicating that older people are less likely to engage in friendly

joking and laughing with others and are also less likely to use humor to disparage,

ridicule, or manipulate others. On the other hand, older women (but not men) had

higher scores than younger ones on self-enhancing humor, indicating a generally more


humorous outlook on life and greater use of perspective-taking and coping humor.

No age differences were found with the self-defeating humor scale.

Taken together, these findings suggest that humor may serve different functions

for adults at different periods of the lifespan. In younger people, humor may be more

important for expressing aggression in socially acceptable ways, establishing relation-

ships, and testing one's social standing in the peer group, whereas humor in older

people (especially women) may have more to do with coping with stress and main-

taining a humorous outlook on life. These findings suggest potentially interesting

avenues for future longitudinal research exploring changes in humor abilities, enjoy-

ment, and functions over the lifespan.

CONCLUSION

Laughter begins to emerge in infants around four months of age, and occurs in

response to perceptions of incongruity in a playful, safe context. Right from its incep-

tion, laughter functions as a form of social communication. The incongruous tactile

stimuli, actions, sounds, and facial expressions that trigger laughter in infants gradu-

ally evolve into an internalized sense ofhumor, as developing schemas enable the child

to manipulate mental representations of concepts and language in incongruous ways.Much research has examined associations between humor development and the

development of cognitive abilities through childhood. As cognitive capacities become

more complex, children are able to perceive and enjoy more sophisticated forms of

playful incongruity. Humor appreciation signals mastery of concepts, as humor that

playfully violates recently acquired concepts is funnier than humor that is either cog-

nitively too difficult or too simple. Children's ability to understand and enjoy con-

versational forms of humor such as irony and sarcasm also depends on their level of

cognitive development.Social and emotional aspects of humor continue to play a major role throughout

childhood. Humor as a form of communication serves many social functions in chil-

dren as well as adults. Joking and laughing with others about taboo topics and anxiety-

arousing issues and experiences is an important way for children to manage negativeemotions such as anxiety, guilt, and insecurity in the face of an often bewildering and

threatening world.

Individual differences in sense of humor begin to emerge in early childhood. Therelative proportion of genetic and environmental influences on sense ofhumor differs

depending on how humor is defined and measured. With regard to familial influences

on sense ofhumor development, research has tended to support the Stress and CopingHypothesis, although evidence has also been found for the Modeling/Reinforcement

Hypothesis. Some children may develop a strong sense of humor due to a rather dys-functional family environment in which humor emerges as a way of coping with neg-ative emotions and gaining attention and approval from otherwise nonnurturing

parents, whereas others may develop a sense of humor as a result of growing up in a

well-functioning family in which humor is valued and modeled.

CONCLUSION 2<

Sense of humor defined as a tendency to frequently initiate humor and amuse

one's peers is associated with having been physically active, dominant, and aggressive,

and having precocious language abilities in the preschool years, and disruptive class-

room behavior during elementary school, but also popularity among peers and cre-

ativity in high school. Sense of humor defined as the ability to comprehend and

produce humor in the laboratory is associated with social competence, cooperative-

ness, initiative, and leadership.

In the latter part of the life span, declining cognitive abilities may be associated

with reduced comprehension of humor, but no reduction in humor appreciation and

enjoyment. More conservative attitudes in older as compared to younger adults are

associated with greater enjoyment of incongruity-resolution and reduced enjoymentof nonsense humor. Older adults tend to use humor in less aggressive and affiliative

ways, but their greater breadth of life experience may enable them to have a gener-

ally more humorous outlook on life and an increased ability to use humor in copingwith life stress.

The study ofhumor development in childhood and across the lifespan offers manyinteresting research opportunities. Although many studies have examined the role of

cognitive development in the comprehension and appreciation of "canned" jokes, car-

toons, and riddles, only a limited amount of research has examined cognitive devel-

opmental aspects of more spontaneous forms of verbal and nonverbal humor that

occur in everyday social interactions. Further research is also needed on the social

functions of humor in infancy and childhood and changes in these functions throughchildhood and adolescence. Research on developmental aspects of the role of humorin emotional coping is also needed.

With regard to individual differences in sense of humor, our knowledge of famil-

ial and other social environmental influences on humor development is still verylimited. Research on this topic needs to employ methodologies that enable researchers

to control for possible genetic confounds. Finally, further research is needed on

changes in various components of sense of humor in later life, as well as changes in

the social and emotional functions of humor in the elderly. In all these areas, longi-

tudinal research designs are needed to augment the findings of cross-sectional

research. Thus, although the existing research has provided a great deal of interest-

ing information about the development of humor, many questions remain to be

answered.

CHAPTER 9

Humor and Mental Health

In recent decades, a sense of humor has

come to be viewed not only as a very socially desirable personality trait but also as an

important component of mental health. Besides boosting positive emotions and

counteracting negative moods like depression and anxiety, humor is thought to be a

valuable mechanism for coping with stressful life events and an important social skill

for initiating, maintaining, and enhancing satisfying interpersonal relationships

(Galloway and Cropley, 1999; Kuiper and Olinger, 1998; Lefcourt, 2001). A good deal

of research in the psychology of humor in the past two decades has focused on the

relation between humor and various aspects of mental health.

Our discussion of the implications of humor for mental health in this chapter

brings us to clinical psychology, the branch of psychology having to do with the study,

assessment, and treatment of psychological disorders, as well as the study and pro-motion of factors contributing to positive mental health and well-being (Seligman and

Peterson, 2003). Clinical psychology is both a research discipline and an applied pro-fession. In this chapter, I will focus on the research aspect, exploring empirical find-

ings concerning the role of humor in psychological health and well-being; applied

issues will be the focus in Chapter 1 1,where I will consider applications of humor to

psychotherapy.Mental health is often defined in negative terms as the absence of psychologi-

cal disturbance or emotional distress. In this chapter, I will take a more positive

approach, defining it in terms of three general capacities that seem to be essential for

269

HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH

an individual to thrive and flourish. These are: (1) the ability to regulate negative

emotions and enjoy positive emotions; (2) the ability to cope with stress and adaptto change; and (3) the ability to establish close, meaningful, and enduring relation-

ships with others. In the following sections I will describe research investigating the

potential benefits of humor for each of these three components of positive mental

health.

HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING

As we have seen in earlier chapters, one component of humor is the positive

emotion of mirth that is elicited. When people engage in humor and laughter, theytend to feel more cheerful and energetic, and less depressed, anxious, irritable, and

tense. In the short term, at least, humor seems to boost positive moods and counter-

act negative emotions. Thus, one way a sense of humor may be beneficial to mental

health is by contributing to one's ability to regulate or manage emotions, which is an

essential aspect of mental health (Gross and Mufioz, 1995).

Experimental Investigations of Humor and Emotions

The effects of humor on mood have been demonstrated in a number of labora-

tory experiments. In two studies, Willibald Ruch (1997) exposed participants to humoreither by having them interact with a clowning experimenter or by showing them

comedy videotapes. The frequency, intensity, and duration of their smiling and laugh-ter were coded using the criteria for the Duchenne display which, as we saw in Chapter

6, indicates genuine amusement. The more the participants smiled and laughed in

this way, the more their self-reported feelings of cheerfulness and mirth increased

over baseline. Thus, smiling and laughter are an expression of the positive emotion

of mirth that is induced by the perception of humor, and the more intense this

emotion, the greater the laughter. Interestingly, there were no correlations between

the participants' pre-existing (baseline) moods and the degree to which they smiled

and laughed at the humorous stimuli, confirming that positive emotions were a con-

sequence rather than a cause of humorous amusement.

Other research suggests that smiling and laughter by themselves, even without

humor, can induce positive feelings of mirth. For example, when participants were

asked to rate the funniness of cartoons while holding a pen in their mouth in a waythat caused them to contract the facial muscles normally associated with smiling (as

compared to subjects who held the pen in a way that inhibited such muscle contrac-

tions), they rated the cartoons as funnier and reported greater increases in positive

mood (Strack, Martin, and Stepper, 1988). Laboratory studies have also found signif-

icant increases in positive mood in subjects following sessions of forced, nonhumor-ous laughter (Foley, Matheis, and Schaefer, 2002; Neuhoff and Schaefer, 2002). Thus,the act of smiling and laughing, even when done artificially, seems to induce feelings

of amusement and mirth, at least temporarily.


Besides increasing positive moods, there is experimental evidence that humor can

reduce negative moods. One experiment found that exposure to a four-minute humor-ous film led to a significant reduction in reported feelings of anxiety relative to base-

line (C. C. Moran, 1996). Another study compared the mood effects of watching a

20-minute comedy videotape, running on a treadmill for 20 minutes, and watching a

nonhumorous documentary video (Szabo, 2003). Compared to the aerobic exercise,

the comedy video produced similar increases in positive mood and decreases in emo-tional distress and even greater reductions in anxiety, and both comedy and exercise

showed significantly stronger mood effects than did the nonhumorous control video

(these results were replicated by Szabo, Ainsworth, and Danks, 2005). Taken together,

these findings suggest that humor produces positive short-term emotional changesthat are at least comparable if not superior to the effects of vigorous physical

exercise.

There is also some evidence that humor can counteract the effects of experi-

mentally induced depressed moods. Using a standard laboratory mood-induction

technique, Amy Danzer and her colleagues (1990) induced dysphoric moods in female

undergraduate students and then randomly assigned them to either humorous audio-

tape (stand-up comedy), nonhumorous audiotape (an interesting but unfunny geog-

raphy lecture), or no tape conditions. Participants in all three groups showed

significant increases in self-reported depressed moods following the mood induction,

indicating that this procedure was effective, but only those in the humor condition

showed a significant posttreatment reduction in dysphoria back to baseline levels, sug-

gesting that humor counteracted the depressed mood.

Besides influencing positive and negative moods, there is experimental evidence

that humor-related mirth affects one's general outlook on life. One study found that

participants who watched a comedy videotape, as compared to those who viewed a

nonhumorous video, reported a significantly greater increase in feelings of hopeful-ness (Vilaythong, Arnau, Rosen, and Mascaro, 2003). Another experiment suggestedthat humor can change one's perceptions of a boring task into an interesting one

(Dienstbier, 1995). After watching either a comedy or nonhumorous videotape, par-

ticipants engaged in several repetitive and boring proofreading tasks. Those who had

viewed the comedy video, as compared to those in the control group, reported higherlevels of energy and elation and rated these tasks as being more challenging and invig-

orating, although they did not actually achieve better performance on the tasks. Thus,the positive emotion associated with humor seems to make people more hopeful, more

energetic, and less susceptible to boredom.

The preceding experiments provided fairly consistent evidence of short-term

effects ofhumor on positive and negative moods and feelings of well-being in the lab-

oratory. Based on these findings, one would expect that exposing people to humor-

ous stimuli repeatedly over a number of weeks or months should result in overall

improvements in their prevailing moods and general outlook on life. However, whenresearchers have investigated longer-term psychological effects of repeated exposureto humorous stimuli over fairly extended time periods, the results have generally been

rather disappointing.


In one study, patients with chronic schizophrenia in one ward of a psychiatric

hospital were shown 70 comedy movies over a three-month period, while those in

another ward were shown an equal number of nonhumorous dramatic movies

(Gelkopf, Kreitler, and Sigal, 1993). After these interventions, comparisons were made

between the two groups on 2 1 measures relating to staff-rated and self-rated moods,

psychiatric symptoms, physical health symptoms, physiological variables, and cogni-tive functioning. Significant benefits were found on only six of these variables, most

of which involved perceptions of the patients by hospital staff. In particular, the

patients who had watched the comedy movies, compared to those in the other group,were rated by the staff as having significantly lower levels of verbal (but not behav-

ioral) hostility, anxiety/depression, and tension, and the patients themselves reported

greater perceived social support from the staff. The authors of the study acknowl-

edged that these rather meager findings may have had more to do with the effects of

the movies on the perceptions of the hospital staff than on the actual functioning of

the patients.

Even fewer psychological benefits of humor were found in other intervention

studies. James Rotton and Mark Shats (1996) randomly assigned patients recoveringfrom orthopedic surgery to watch either four feature-length comedy movies, four

dramatic but nonhumorous movies, or no movies during the two days postsurgery.

The results showed no differences between the humorous and non-humorous movie

conditions in levels of self-rated emotional distress and pain over the two days.

However, both of the movie-watching groups reported less distress and pain than did

those in the no-movie control condition, indicating a beneficial effect of watchingmovies of any kind, but no particular benefit of humor.

Similarly, in a study of elderly residents of a long-term care facility, no significant

differences in self-reported prevailing moods were found after six weeks of watchinghumorous versus nonhumorous feature-length movies three days per week, althoughboth groups showed equal improvements in mood over the course of the study (E. R.

Adams and McGuire, 1986). Finally, in an experiment in which undergraduate

participants were randomly assigned to six weekly lV2-hour sessions of either

laughter-induction exercises, relaxation training, or didactic health education presen-

tations, the laughter-induction sessions were found to be no more effective than the

nonhumorous health education lectures, and significantly less effective than the relax-

ation sessions, in reducing total mood disturbance and anxiety (White and Camarena,

1989).

In summary, although the experimental laboratory research indicates that humorand laughter have beneficial short-term mood effects, there is little evidence of longer-term psychological benefits of repeated exposure to humorous movies or participa-

tion in laughter sessions over a period of days or weeks. These findings raise questionsabout the benefits of humor interventions such as those provided by laughter clubs,

in which members meet regularly to engage in laughter-induction exercises (Kataria,

2002).

Although the research in this area is still quite limited, the evidence to date sug-

gests that simply laughing for an hour or two a few times a week has little lasting


effect on individuals' overall well-being. This may be because the humor is not inte-

grated into the participants' day-to-day experiences. Perhaps such interventions wouldhave greater benefits if they were designed to increase the frequency of humor and

laughter arising spontaneously during people's everyday social interactions, influenc-

ing the way they respond to ongoing life experiences, and thus contributing to moreeffective emotion regulation. This would presumably require training people how to

take a more humorous perspective on their daily experiences and to produce humorin their interactions with others.

However, very little research has investigated the degree to which people can

actually be taught to increase their tendency to engage in humor in the course of their

daily lives. In the only published study of this kind, Ofra Nevo and her colleaguesevaluated the effectiveness of a seven-week, 2 1 -hour training program for increasingsense of humor in high school teachers, but found only limited evidence of success

(Nevo, Aharonson, and Klingman, 1998). The program led to increased peer ratings

of humor production and appreciation, as well as more positive attitudes toward

humor in the participants, but it did not improve their ability to produce humor, as

assessed by tests of humor creativity, or their scores on self-report humor measures.

Unfortunately, the effects of the intervention on psychological well-being were not

examined. In view of the efforts being made by some health care professionals to

promote mental and physical health by means of various interventions designed to

improve people's sense of humor (e.g., McGhee, 1999), there is clearly a need for

further research to determine whether it is even possible to change the quantity or

quality of people's everyday use of humor.

Correlational Studies of Trait Humor and Emotional Well-Being

Ifhumor in general is beneficial to psychological well-being, then individuals who

engage in humor more frequently in their everyday lives (i.e., those with a greatersense of humor) should tend to be generally less depressed, anxious, and pessimistic,

less likely to experience burnout and to develop psychiatric disorders, and they should

have greater self-esteem, optimism, and overall feelings of well-being. Numerousstudies have investigated these hypotheses by examining correlations between indi-

viduals' scores on various trait measures of sense of humor and a variety of measures

of emotional and psychological well-being.

Studies of university students using the Coping Humor Scale (CHS), Situational

Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ), and Sense of Humor Questionnaire

Metamessage Sensitivity (SHQ-M) and Liking of Humor (SHQ-L) scales (discussed

in Chapter 7) have found moderate negative correlations between some (but not all)

of these humor scales and measures of neuroticism, anxiety, and depression, and pos-itive correlations with self-esteem (Deaner and McConatha, 1993; Kuiper and

Borowicz-Sibenik, 2005; Kuiper and Martin, 1993). Which humor scales are signifi-

cantly correlated with which well-being measures tends to vary across studies.

Research using the Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS) has also found

significant but generally weak negative correlations between this humor test and


measures of depression, death anxiety, pessimism, and the tendency to worry about

various life concerns (Kelly, 2002; Thorson and Powell, 1993b, 1994; Thorson et al.,

1997).

Some studies investigating stress-moderating effects of humor (which will be

described in more detail later in this chapter) have also reported significant negativecorrelations between various self-report humor scales and measures of depression

(Anderson and Arnoult, 1989; Nezu, Nezu, and Blissett, 1988; Overholser, 1992;

Porterfield, 1987; Safranek and Schill, 1982), mood disturbance (Labott and Martin,

1987; Lefcourt et al., 1995), and emotional burnout (P. S. Fry, 1995). However, some

other studies found no simple correlation between sense of humor tests and anxiety

(Nezu et al., 1988), mood disturbance (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983), or positive

moods (Kuiper, Martin, and Dance, 1992).

To investigate the association between sense of humor and self-esteem, Nicholas

Kuiper and I examined correlations between four humor scales (CHS, SHRQ,SHQ-M, and SHQ-L) and various measures of self-concept in undergraduate par-

ticipants (Kuiper and Martin, 1993). All four humor tests were found to be positively

correlated with a measure of self-esteem. In addition, three of them were negativelyrelated to the discrepancy between participants' actual and ideal self-ratings on a series

of 60 self-descriptive adjectives, indicating that those with higher humor scores had

a greater congruence between the way they actually perceived themselves and the waythey would ideally like to be. In addition, two of the humor tests were significantly

related to the temporal stability of self-ratings on these adjectives over a one-month

period, indicating that participants with higher humor scores had a more stable self-

concept. Finally, participants with higher scores on all four humor scales were sig-

nificantly less likely to endorse dysfunctional, unrealistic, and perfectionistic

self-evaluative standards. Overall, this study indicated that individuals with higherscores on at least some of these humor measures tend to have a more positive, con-

gruent, stable, and realistic self-concept.

In addition to research on university students, a study of elderly residents of

assisted living facilities found that those with higher scores on the CHS tended to

have higher levels of emotional health, positive mood, and zest for life (Celso, Ebener,and Burkhead, 2003). A study of well-being among noninstitutionalized elderly

women and men also found that higher scores on the SHRQ and CHS were signifi-

cantly associated with better morale but unrelated to overall life satisfaction (Simon,

1990). In addition, a study of the relation between humor and burnout among instruc-

tors in a school of nursing found that higher scores on the CHS were related to sig-

nificantly lower levels of depersonalization and higher levels of perceived personal

accomplishment, but were unrelated to emotional exhaustion (Talbot and Lumden,2000).

Whereas the preceding research was conducted with nonclinical samples, a few

studies have also investigated whether psychiatric patients have lower sense of humor

scores, on average, than do people without diagnosed psychiatric disorders. One study

compared a group of hospitalized adolescent psychiatric patients and a group of

normal adolescents and found no differences in their average scores on the CHS or


measures of humor creation ability and humor appreciation, casting some doubt on

the benefits of humor for mental health (Freiheit, Overholser, and Lehnert, 1998).

Similarly, a study of defensive styles in clinically depressed patients found no differ-

ence in humor scores between those who had recently attempted suicide and those

who had not (Corruble et al., 2004).

One study did report that hospitalized adult psychiatric patients diagnosed with

depression or schizophrenia had significantly lower scores on at least some trait humormeasures as compared to scale norms derived from university students (Kuiper et al.,

1998). However, it is questionable whether this was an appropriate comparison group,due to differences in age, education level, and social background. Overall, then,

although the research on this question is quite limited, there is little evidence that

high humor individuals are less likely to have psychiatric disorders than are those with

less of a sense of humor. Some clinicians have pointed out that clinically depressed

people do not necessarily display less humor than others, but their humor tends to be

rather black, cynical, hostile, and excessively self-disparaging (e.g., Kantor, 1992).

Nonetheless, there is some evidence that, within groups of individuals diagnosedwith clinical depression, greater emotional disturbance is associated with lower trait

humor scores. In the study of hospitalized adolescent psychiatric patients, higherscores on the CHS were associated with lower levels of depression and higher self-

esteem, although they were unrelated to feelings ofhopelessness (Freiheit et al., 1998).

The study of hospitalized adult psychiatric patients found that higher sense of humorscores tended to be associated with lower depression and higher self-esteem and pos-itive moods among the clinically depressed patients (Kuiper et al., 1998). However,sense of humor was unrelated to symptom severity among patients diagnosed with

schizophrenia. Another study of humor in hospitalized schizophrenic patients simi-

larly found no relation between scores on the CHS and several self-report and

psychiatrist-rated measures of hostility, aggression, and anger (Gelkopf and Sigal,

1995). Thus, although a greater sense of humor seems to be related to lower sever-

ity of disturbance in clinically depressed individuals, this does not seem to be the case

among persons with schizophrenia.

In the correlational research described so far, the overall evidence for mental

health benefits of a sense ofhumor is not overwhelming. Some correlations have been

found between sense of humor, as measured by self-report scales, and various com-

ponents of emotional well-being, but the associations often tend to be quite weak and

the findings have been somewhat inconsistent across studies. Nicholas Kuiper and I

(1998a) examined the results of five correlational studies to determine how sense of

humor compares with another positive personality characteristic commonly thoughtto be important for mental health, namely optimism. These studies employed four

sense of humor scales (CHS, SHRQ, SHQ-M, and SHQ-L), a test of dispositional

optimism, and various measures of psychological well-being. The analyses revealed

that higher scores on the sense of humor scales were only weakly associated with

greater optimism. In relation to a multidimensional measure of psychological well-

being, higher scores on the humor tests were associated with only one subscale assess-

ing personal growth, but they were unrelated to self-acceptance, positive relations


with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. In contrast, opti-

mism was much more strongly related to all six of these components of psychologi-cal well-being.

The humor scales were also almost entirely uncorrelated with a measure of mental

health-related assumptions about the world and other people, whereas optimism was

significantly related in positive ways to most of these world beliefs. Consistent with

other research, the sense ofhumor scales did show moderate positive correlations with

self-esteem, and negative correlations with anxiety, depression, fear of negative eval-

uations, and social avoidance and distress. However, optimism was more strongly

related to all of these well-being measures. Thus, although these sense of humormeasures are associated with some aspects of emotional well-being, the correlations

appear to be generally weaker and less extensive than are those with other "positive

personality" constructs such as optimism.These rather weak and inconsistent associations between trait measures of sense

of humor and well-being can perhaps be explained by research (discussed in Chapter

7) showing that most self-report humor tests load primarily on the general personal-

ity factor of extraversion, but only weakly, if at all, on the neuroticism factor (Kohlerand Ruch, 1996; Ruch, 1994). Extraversion has to do with the general tendency to

experience positive emotions, as well as traits such as sociable, lively, and active. Onthe other hand, neuroticism, which is unrelated to extraversion, involves emotional

instability, moodiness, irritability, and the tendency to experience negative emotions,

such as depression, anxiety, and hostility. Not surprisingly, most measures of psycho-

logical well-being load primarily (negatively) on the neuroticism factor (DeNeve,

1999).

The fact that the two broad personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroti-

cism are uncorrelated with each other may explain why the sense of humor measures

(relating primarily to extraversion) tend to be only weakly associated with well-beingmeasures (relating mainly to neuroticism). Since dispositional optimism is more

strongly (inversely) associated with neuroticism than are the humor measures, it also

tends to correlate more strongly with well-being measures. This begs the question of

whether there are some dimensions of humor that are more strongly associated with

neuroticism, either negatively or positively, which are not well measured by the self-

report humor tests used in the research discussed so far. This question is addressed

in the next section.

Distinguishing Potentially Healthy and Unhealthy Humor Styles

People use humor in their interactions with others in many different ways and

for different purposes. As noted in Chapter 5, humor serves numerous interpersonal

functions, some of which may contribute to greater social cohesiveness and enhanced

communication between people, whereas others may be more coercive, disparaging,or ingratiating. Although overall sense of humor may be weakly related to emotional

health, as suggested by research described in the previous section, perhaps some of


the ways people use humor are more strongly associated with well-being, whereas

other forms of humor may even be associated with poorer psychological health.

This way of thinking about the connection between humor and mental health is

consistent with the views of psychologists writing about this topic in the past. For

example, when Sigmund Freud (1928) referred to humor as the "highest of the defense

mechanisms" (p. 216) and described it as "something fine and elevating" (p. 217), he

was not speaking about humor in the broad sense that we generally associate with it

today, but instead he was giving it a narrow meaning, consistent with the terminol-

ogy of the nineteenth century. As noted in Chapter 1, humor in this sense referred

exclusively to a sympathetic, tolerant, and benevolent form of amusement, and

was distinguished from wit, which was viewed as more sarcastic, biting, and cruel

(Wickberg, 1998).

In a similar way, psychologists like Abraham Maslow (1954), Gordon Allport

(1961), and Walter O'Connell (1976) suggested that especially well-adjusted individ-

uals are characterized by a particular style of humor that is nonhostile, philosophical,

and self-deprecating while remaining self-accepting. These authors viewed this

healthy form of humor as relatively rare, in contrast with most of the humor occur-

ring in everyday social interactions and in the media. Interestingly, they also suggestedthat healthy forms of humor are not necessarily extremely funny, being more likely

to trigger a chuckle than a hearty laugh. Maslow (1954) even suggested that the par-

ticularly well-adjusted people that he characterized as "self-actualizing" would

likely be perceived by the average person as "rather on the sober and serious side"

(p. 223).

These ideas suggest that psychological health relates not only to the presence of

certain kinds of adaptive humor but also to the absence of other more unhealthy forms

of amusement. Rather than assuming that humor in general is beneficial for mental

health and well-being, as most recent researchers seem to have done, it may there-

fore be important to return to earlier views which made a distinction between bene-

ficial and detrimental forms of humor.

This view ofhumor as being potentially detrimental as well as beneficial to mental

health was the rationale for our development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire

(HSQ; R. A. Martin et al., 2003), which I described in Chapter 7. In developing this

measure, we identified two styles of humor that have been discussed in the literature

as being potentially unhealthy: one involving the use of humor to enhance the self at

the expense of others, and the other involving the use of humor to gain approval and

attention from others at the expense of one's own psychological needs. We hypothe-sized that these two humor styles may capture some of the forms of humor that psy-

chologists like Allport and Maslow viewed as less likely to be found in people who are

particularly psychologically healthy.

The first of these, aggressive humor, is the tendency to use humor for the purposeof criticizing or manipulating others, as in sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, or dis-

paragement humor (e.g., "If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about

it"), as well as the use of potentially offensive (e.g., racist or sexist) forms of humor.


It also includes the compulsive expression of humor even when it is socially inappro-

priate (e.g., "Sometimes I think of something that is so funny that I can't stop myselffrom saying it, even if it is not appropriate for the situation"). Most of us know peoplewho tend to use humor in these sorts of aggressive and domineering ways.

The other potentially unhealthy style, self-defeating humor, involves the use of

humor to ingratiate oneself with others, attempts to amuse others by doing or saying

funny things at one's own expense, excessively self-disparaging humor, and laughing

along with others when being ridiculed or disparaged (e.g., "I often try to make

people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses,

blunders, or faults"). It also involves the use of humor as a form of defensive

denial (Marcus, 1990), to hide one's underlying negative feelings or avoid dealing

constructively with problems ("If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often

cover it up by joking around, so that even my closest friends don't know how I really

feel").

A prominent example of what we consider to be the use of self-defeating humorwas Chris Farley, a popular American comedian in the early 1990s who honed his

zany comedic skills as an overweight child with a desperate need to be liked by others.

Despite the outstanding success that he achieved as a young adult through his hilar-

ious and rather compulsive sense of humor, he seemed to harbor a deep self-loathing,

destroying himself at an early age through alcohol, drugs, and overeating. Rather than

contributing to effective coping, his humor seemed to be a way of denying the sever-

ity of his problems and deflecting the concerns of his friends. John Belushi, who met

a similar end in the midst of a brilliant comedy career, seems to be another exampleof this self-defeating humor style. Interestingly, in our research with the HSQ, aggres-

sive and self-defeating humor turned out to be significantly positively correlated with

each other, indicating that people who use one potentially unhealthy style tend to use

the other as well.

We also identified two styles of humor that we thought might be positively asso-

ciated with psychological well-being, one having to do with the use of humor to

promote positive interpersonal relationships and the other with the use of humorto cope with stress and regulate emotions. The first of these, affiliative humor, refers

to the tendency to say funny things, to tell jokes, and to engage in spontaneous witty

banter, in order to amuse others, to facilitate relationships, and to reduce interper-

sonal tensions (e.g., "I enjoy making people laugh"; "I don't have to work very hard

at making other people laugh I seem to be a naturally humorous person"). Weviewed this as an essentially nonhostile, tolerant use of humor that is affirming of self

and others and presumably enhances interpersonal cohesiveness. However, research

with the HSQ has shown that, at least in North American samples, affiliative humorturns out to be weakly correlated with aggressive humor, suggesting that it may tap

into the use of teasing, which may at times be friendly and prosocial, but also risks

becoming aggressive.

The second presumably healthy humor style is self-enhancing humor, which refers

to the tendency to be frequently amused by the incongruities of life, to maintain a

humorous perspective even in the face of stress or adversity, and to use humor as an

HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING 27<

emotion-regulation mechanism (e.g., "My humorous outlook on life keeps me from

getting overly upset or depressed about things"). This humor style is closely related

to the construct assessed by the earlier Coping Humor Scale. Subsequent research

has found that self-enhancing humor tends to be fairly strongly related to affiliative

humor, a finding that emphasizes the essentially social nature of humor, but it is unre-

lated to aggressive and self-defeating humor, suggesting that this may be the health-

iest of the four humor styles. We consider it to be the closest of the four to the

traditional, narrowly defined concept of humor, which was viewed by Freud (1928) as

a healthy defense mechanism or coping style.

Research examining correlations between the subscales of the HSQ and previous

self-report humor scales provided support for our view that this new measure taps

into distinct dimensions ofhumor that are not well differentiated (or not even assessed

at all) by the earlier measures (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). For example, the CHS,although quite strongly related to self-enhancing (as well as affiliative) humor, has also

been found to be correlated with aggressive humor, suggesting that it may not be as

pure a measure of positive humor uses as the self-enhancing humor scale. Worse still,

the MSHS was found to be positively correlated with all four HSQ scales, indicatingthat it taps into potentially unhealthy aggressive and self-defeating humor as well as

potentially healthy forms of humor. This may account for the generally weak corre-

lations with well-being measures found in research using the MSHS.Other humor measures such as the SHRQ, SHQ, and Cheerfulness scale of the

State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI-T) were found to be positively correlated

with affiliative and self-enhancing humor, but unrelated to aggressive and self-

defeating humor. Thus, although there is less evidence that these earlier humor meas-

ures capture unhealthy aspects of humor, the addition of the two negative forms of

humor in the HSQ might be useful for exploring these more negative aspects of

humor that have not been assessed by previous scales. Interestingly, with regard to

gender, whereas negligible differences have been found between men and women on

the two presumably healthy styles of humor, men on average tend to have higherscores on the two potentially negative styles, suggesting that men and women do not

differ in their healthy uses of humor, but men may be more likely to use humor in

unhealthy ways (R. A. Martin et al., 2003).

Our initial studies with the HSQ provided general support for our view that these

different humor styles are differentially related to psychological health and well-being

(R. A. Martin et al., 2003). Affiliative and self-enhancing humor were found to be neg-

atively correlated with anxiety and depression, and positively correlated with self-

esteem and a measure of overall psychological well-being, the correlations with

self-enhancing humor being somewhat stronger than those with affiliative humor. In

contrast, higher scores on self-defeating humor were found to be associated with

greater anxiety, depression, and psychiatric symptoms, and lower self-esteem and

overall well-being. Aggressive and self-defeating humor styles were also both related

to hostility and aggression. Thus, as expected, less use of these negative humor styles

(particularly self-defeating humor) seems to be related to more healthy psychological

functioning.

>0 9 HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH

When the four HSQ scales were entered together into regression equations to

predict the various measures of emotional well-being, sizable multiple correlations

were found (averaging about .50). These correlations were considerably stronger than

those typically found in earlier studies of humor and well-being, indicating that, by

combining uses of humor that are negatively related to well-being with those that are

positively related, we were able to account for a greater proportion of the variance in

well-being variables. With regard to the broad personality dimension of neuroticism,

afnliative humor was found to be unrelated, whereas self-enhancing humor was neg-

atively related, and both aggressive and self-defeating humor were positively related

to this personality factor. Thus, as expected, the different HSQ scales seem to differ-

entiate styles of humor that are positively related, negatively related, and neutral with

regard to neuroticism, suggesting that emotional stability is associated not just with

the presence of certain styles of humor, but also with the absence of other styles. Humor

appears to be neither inherently healthy nor unhealthy; its relation to mental health

depends on how it is used in everyday life.

Several additional recent studies with the HSQ have added to these findings.

Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (2004) found that higher scores on self-

enhancing humor were associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety, and

negative affect, and higher levels of self-esteem and positive affect. The pattern of

correlations with affiliative humor was similar, but generally weaker. In contrast, self-

defeating humor showed the exact opposite pattern of correlations: greater use of this

type of humor was associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and negative

affect, and lower levels of self-esteem. Aggressive humor, however, was unrelated to

the emotional well-being measures. In another study, Vassilis Saroglou and Christel

Scariot (2002) administered a French translation of the HSQ to Belgian university

and high school students, and found that individuals with higher self-esteem reported

greater use of affiliative humor and lower use of self-defeating humor. Self-defeating

and aggressive humor were also both associated with lower levels of motivation for

academic success.

Paul Frewen and his colleagues similarly found that individuals who reported

higher levels of depressed moods tended to report lower use of self-enhancing and

(to a lesser degree) affiliative humor, and greater use of self-defeating humor (Frewen,

Brinker, Martin, and Dozois, in press). This study also looked at measures of

sociotropy and autonomy, two personality dimensions that have been found to be vul-

nerability factors for depression. Sociotropy refers to the degree to which one's sense

of self-worth is based excessively on one's perceived likableness to others, making one

socially dependent and vulnerable to depression when experiencing interpersonal crit-

icism or rejection. On the other hand, autonomy has to do with the degree to which

one is invested in preserving independence and defining self-worth in terms of per-sonal achievement, and it is associated with increased vulnerability to depression when

people experience achievement-related failures. After controlling for current depres-sion levels, sociotropy was found to be negatively related to self-enhancing humorand positively related to self-defeating humor. Autonomy, in turn, was associated with

both self-defeating and aggressive humor. Thus, negative forms of humor appear to

HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING 28

be associated with personality traits that make people vulnerable to depression. Onthe other hand, self-enhancing humor, being negatively related to sociotropy, mayserve to protect the individual from becoming depressed during experiences of social

rejection.

Previous research has shown that individuals who engage in the cognitive

style of rumination (i.e., those who tend to repeatedly go over negative events and

feelings in their mind) are particularly vulnerable to depression. A recent study of

university students using the HSQ found that individuals with higher scores on self-

enhancing and (more weakly) affiliative humor are less likely to engage in rumination

(M. L. Olson et al., 2005). Moreover, this study found evidence that these two posi-

tive humor styles can buffer the effect of rumination on depression. In particular,

participants with lower scores on these two humor styles showed a strong correlation

between their frequency of rumination and dysphoric mood symptoms, whereas

those with higher humor scores did not show any association between these two

variables.

Overall, the correlational findings obtained so far suggest that self-enhancinghumor is particularly related in a positive way to emotional well-being, supportingour view that this is an especially healthy humor style. For its part, affiliative humorseems to be somewhat more weakly related to emotional health, producing correla-

tions that are more in line with those found with previous trait humor measures. In

contrast, self-defeating humor is consistently negatively associated with well-being

measures, indicating that this use of humor to ingratiate oneself with others at one's

own expense and deny the presence of negative emotion is particularly related to

unhealthy functioning. On the other hand, aggressive humor appears to be largely

unrelated to overall psychological well-being. Although earlier theorists such as

Freud, Maslow, and Allport seemed to view aggressive forms of humor as being par-

ticularly problematic for overall psychological health, our research findings do not

provide much support for this view. As we will see later in this chapter, however,

aggressive humor seems to play a particularly negative role in regard to the quality of

one's close interpersonal relationships.

Before leaving this topic, it is important to note that all of these findings are cor-

relational, and they therefore do not permit us to determine the direction of causal-

ity between sense of humor and mental health. For example, the frequent use of

self-defeating humor may cause people to be more prone to depression, have lower

self-esteem, and so on, but it is equally possible that people engage in this humor

style as a consequence of having low levels of psychological well-being. Similarly,

although the frequent use of self-enhancing humor may cause people to be less proneto emotional disturbance, it is also possible that being more psychologically healthycauses people to use humor in this way. It may also be the case that humor styles

and components of psychological health have no causal connection at all, but are both

consequences of a third variable, such as neuroticism. The most we can say at the

present time is that emotional well-being tends to be associated with the presenceof self-enhancing and affiliative uses of humor and the absence of self-defeating

humor.

52 9 HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH

One way for researchers to address these questions of causality may be throughthe use of daily experience methods or event-sampling procedures, in which the use

of different styles of humor as well as various aspects of psychological well-being are

assessed repeatedly in individuals over a period of days or weeks (Reis and Gable,

2000). By examining time-lagged associations, it may be possible to determine

whether more frequent use of particular styles of humor is followed or preceded by

changes in well-being over hours or days, providing some indication of the direction

of causality in these associations. I will have more to say about these sorts of research

methods later in this chapter.

HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING

A second general way humor may potentially be beneficial to mental (as well as

physical) health has to do with its use in coping with stressful life experiences. A con-

siderable amount of research has shown that high levels of stressful events, such as

natural disasters, relationship conflicts, work pressures, and financial problems, can

have adverse effects on one's mental and physical health, producing such negative out-

comes as emotional disturbance, cognitive inefficiency, and behavioral impairments

(A. K. Johnson and Anderson, 1990; Sanderson, 2004).

However, these sorts of negative outcomes of stress are not inevitable. Based on

the theoretical framework of Richard Lazarus and his colleagues (e.g., Lazarus and

Folkman, 1984), a great deal of research has shown that psychological appraisal and

coping processes play an important role in determining whether or not potentially

stressful life experiences result in adverse physiological and psychological outcomes.

Over the years, many theorists have suggested that the ability to respond with humorin the face of stress and adversity may be an important and effective coping skill

(Freud, 1928; Lefcourt, 2001; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Norman Dixon (1980)

even suggested that humor may have evolved in humans specifically for this

purpose.

Many authors have noted that humor, because it inherently involves incongruityand multiple interpretations, provides a way for individuals to shift perspective on a

stressful situation, reappraising it from a new and less-threatening point of view. As a

consequence of this humorous reappraisal, the situation becomes less stressful and

more manageable, and the individual is less likely to experience a stress response

(Dixon, 1980). Walter O'Connell (1976) described humorous people as being "skilled

in rapid perceptual-cognitive switches in frames of reference" (p. 327), an ability that

presumably enables them to reappraise a problem situation, distance themselves from

its immediate threat, and thereby reduce the often paralyzing feelings of anxiety and

helplessness. Similarly, Rollo May (1953) stated that humor has the function of "pre-

serving the self ... It is the healthy way of feeling a 'distance' between one's self and

the problem, a way of standing off and looking at one's problem with perspective"

(p. 54).

HUMOR. STRESS, AND COPING 28

As noted in Chapter 2, superiority theory, which views humor as a form of playful

aggression, can also be seen as a basis for conceptualizing humor as a coping mech-anism. By poking fun at other people and situations that would normally be viewed

as threatening or constricting, one is able to gain a sense of liberation and freedom

from threat and thereby experience positive feelings of well-being and efficacy. AsHorace Kallen (1968) wrote, "I laugh at that which has endangered or degraded or

has fought to suppress, enslave, or destroy what I cherish and has failed. My laugh-ter signalizes its failure and my own liberation" (p. 59). Other authors, taking an exis-

tential approach, have emphasized the sense of liberation, mastery, and self-respect

provided by humor in the face of adversity (Knox, 1951; Mindess, 1971). Thus, as a

means of asserting one's superiority through playful aggression, humor is a way of

refusing to be overcome by the people and situations that threaten one's well-being.At the same time, though, with the use of aggressive forms of humor in coping there

is a risk of cynicism, hostility, and impairment of social relationships.

Although coping humor may at times involve an aggressive element, some theo-

rists have also emphasized the importance of being able to laugh at one's own faults,

failures, and limitations, while maintaining a positive sense of self-esteem. Gordon

Allport (1950) stated, for example, that "the neurotic who learns to laugh at himself

may be on the way to self-management, perhaps to cure" (p. 280). By not takingoneself too seriously, one is able to let go of excessively perfectionistic expectationswhile remaining motivated to achieve realistic goals. There is an important distinc-

tion, however, between self-deprecating humor based on a fundamental sense of self-

worth and excessively self-disparaging humor arising from a negative self-concept, as

measured by the self-defeating humor scale of the HSQ.

Experimental Investigations of Humor as a Stress Moderator

A number of experiments have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of

a humor manipulation in mitigating the emotional or psychophysiological effects of

mildly stressful laboratory stressors. Herbert Lefcourt and I (Lefcourt and Martin,

1986) instructed university students to make up either a humorous narrative, a non-

humorous "intellectual" narrative, or no narrative while they were watching a

silent film entitled Subincision, which depicts a rather gory and evidently painful cir-

cumcision ritual performed on adolescent boys in a tribe ofAustralian aborigines. Theresults revealed that, among female participants, those who created a humorous

narrative (as compared to those in the other two conditions) reported less negativeemotions and displayed fewer behavioral indicators of distress (e.g., averted gaze,

grimacing, hand-rubbing) while watching the film, providing evidence of a stress-

moderating effect of humor. The male participants, however, showed minimal

distress in all three conditions, suggesting that the film was not very stressful for

them.

A similar methodology was used by Michelle Newman and Arthur Stone (1996)

in an experiment in which male college students were instructed to create either a


humorous or a serious narrative while watching a film depicting gruesome accidents

in a lumber mill. Compared to those in the serious narrative condition, the partici-

pants in the humorous condition reported less emotional distress and had lower skin

conductance and heart rate and higher skin temperature for up to 15 minutes fol-

lowing the film, indicating a reduced stress response. Taken together, these studies

provided some evidence that participants who actively create humor to reframe a

potentially stressful situation have a lower stress response, as measured by self-rated

moods, behaviors, and physiological reactions (see also Lehman et al., 2001).

Instead of having participants create humorous narratives during stressful situa-

tions in the laboratory, other researchers have used comedy videotapes as a humor

manipulation. Arnie Cann and his colleagues showed male and female participants

either a humorous stand-up comedy video, a nonhumorous nature video, or no video,

after they had viewed a stressful segment of a movie depicting an airplane crash (Cann,

Holt, and Calhoun, 1999). Analyses of self-rated moods following the intervention

revealed that the humorous video enhanced positive emotions but did not reduce

anxiety relative to the nonhumorous video.

In a subsequent experiment, Cann and his colleagues compared the effects of

exposure to a humorous versus a neutral videotape either before or after participants

watched a stressful film depicting scenes of death (Cann, Calhoun, and Nance, 2000).

Regardless of whether the intervention preceded or followed the stressful film, the

humorous video produced lower ratings of depression and anger and higher positive

moods compared to the neutral video. For anxiety-related moods, however, the

humorous intervention was only effective when it was presented before the stressful

film rather than after it. The authors suggested that the elevated positive emotions

associated with humor may serve to counteract feelings of depression and anger,

whereas the effects of humor on anxiety may be more cognitively mediated: humor

preceding the stressor might work as a cognitive prime, changing the way subsequentevents are interpreted and thereby reducing subsequent anxiety.

In addition to the use of emotionally distressing films, researchers interested in

the effects of humor on stress have employed various types of frustrating tasks, such

as unsolvable anagrams and difficult mental arithmetic problems, to produce mild

stress in the laboratory. One study found that exposure to humorous cartoons miti-

gated the performance-impairing effect of working on unsolvable anagrams (Trice,

1985). Another experiment similarly found that exposure to a humorous videotape,

compared to a nonhumorous video, was effective in reducing anxiety following an

unsolvable anagram task, but only among male participants (Abel and Maxwell, 2002).

However, a study using a 10-minute mental arithmetic task to induce a mild state of

anxiety found no differences among comedy, relaxation, and neutral videotapes on

state anxiety, heart rate, or skin conductance (White and Winzelberg, 1992). Althoughthis study failed to demonstrate a stress-moderating effect of humor, this may have

been due to the minimally stressful nature of the arithmetic task.

In an experiment by Nancy Yovetich and her colleagues, stress was induced by

falsely informing participants that they would receive a painful electric shock 12

minutes later (Yovetich, Dale, and Hudak, 1990). While waiting for the supposed

HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 28!

shock, the participants listened either to a humorous audiotape, a nonhumorous tape,

or no tape. Overall, the participants showed increasing levels of self-rated anxiety and

heart rate across the 12 -minute period, indicating increased anticipatory anxiety.

However, those in the humorous tape condition showed a less steep increase in self-

reported anxiety (but no difference in heart rate) as compared to those in the other

two conditions, providing some evidence of a stress-buffering effect of humor.

In summary, although the results have not always replicated, these experimental

laboratory studies provide some support for the hypothesized stress-buffering effects

of humor. When participants actively create humor during mildly stressful experi-

ences, or when they are exposed to comedy before or after such events, they tend to

report more positive and less negative moods and show less stress-related physiolog-ical arousal as compared to participants in control groups. These studies extend the

findings of the laboratory experiments described earlier, indicating that the generaleffects of humor on moods also occur in mildly stressful conditions.

Although these lab experiments allow researchers to identify the direction of

causality between humor and stress responses, their rather artificial nature makes it

difficult to generalize the findings to everyday experiences. In particular, the stressors

used in these experiments are much milder and of shorter duration than real-life stres-

sors, and the humor manipulations with solitary subjects in the laboratory are only an

approximation of the way humor is typically experienced in everyday life. It is there-

fore important to augment these laboratory findings with more naturalistic types of

research examining the use of humor in coping with real-life stressors. I will discuss

this sort of research in the following sections.

Correlational Studies of Sense of Humor and Coping Styles

As we saw earlier, theorists have suggested a number of possible ways in which

humor might serve to mitigate the effects of stress. For example, taking a humorous

perspective on a stressful situation might enable individuals to alter their frame of ref-

erence, changing appraisals of negative threat into ones of positive challenge, and

increasing feelings of mastery and control over the situation. Other potential coping-related functions of humor include enhancing social support, denying reality, venting

aggressive feelings, and providing distraction. A number of studies have explored these

different hypotheses by examining correlations between various sense ofhumor scales

and measures assessing the types of cognitive appraisals and coping styles participants

typically use when dealing with stress.

In one study, Nick Kuiper and colleagues (1993) examined the relationship

between the Coping Humor Scale and university students' cognitive appraisals of their

first midterm examination in an Introductory Psychology course. The results showed

that, prior to the exam, students with higher scores on the CHS appraised it as more

of a positive challenge rather than a negative threat. Following the exam, those with

high CHS scores reappraised the exam as being more important and positively chal-

lenging if they had done well on it, but lowered their importance and challenge ratings

if they had done poorly. They also adjusted their expectations of how well they would


do on the next exam in a realistic manner, based on their performance on the previ-

ous one. In contrast, those with low CHS scores rated the exam as being more impor-tant if they did poorly rather than well on it, and failed to adjust their expectations

about the next exam according to their past performance.

Higher CHS scores were also found to be associated with lower scores on a

measure of dysfunctional attitudes involving unrealistic and perfectionistic expecta-

tions about achievement and social relationships. These findings provide some

support for the idea that one way a sense of humor may relate to better coping with

stress has to do with the types of cognitive appraisals that individuals make about

potential stressors. Those with a greater tendency to use humor in coping with stress

appear to appraise potentially stressful situations as more challenging rather than

threatening, and to evaluate their own performance and adjust their expectations for

future performance in a less perfectionistic and more realistic and self-protective

manner.

The relation between sense of humor and appraisal processes was also investi-

gated in other research by Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (Kuiper, McKenzie,and Belanger, 1995). In one study they had participants complete a negative life events

measure for the past month, and then asked them questions about the degree to which

they were able to change their perspective or point of view when attempting to copewith these stressful events. Individuals with high scores on the CHS, in comparisonwith low scorers, reported that they were more likely to make a conscious effort to

view their problems from alternate perspectives and were better able to do so, and

that these changes in perspective resulted in more positive perceptions of the events.

In a second study, they examined subjects' cognitive appraisals while completing a

challenging picture-drawing task. Participants with higher sense of humor scores

appraised the task as being more of a positive challenge and less of a negative threat

and reported putting more effort into accomplishing it, providing further evidence

that individual differences in humor are related to different ways of appraising poten-

tially stressful events.

Several studies have also examined correlations between sense of humor scales

and measures of people's typical styles of coping with stress. One study (Kuiper et al.,

1993) found that the CHS was positively correlated with both emotional distancing

(e.g., "Don't let it get to me;" "Refuse to think too much about it") and a confron-

tive coping style (e.g., "Stand my ground and fight for what I want"), suggesting that

the use of humor in coping involves both emotional self-protection and active con-

frontation of problems. A study of humor and coping in women business executives

(P. S. Fry, 1995) found that the CHS and SHRQ were positively associated with both

emotion-focused (i.e., regulation of one's emotional reactions) and existential (i.e.,

taking a detached, philosophical approach to problems) coping orientations. Specific

coping strategies associated with humor included seeking practical and emotional

social support, expressiveness (venting emotions), tension-reduction (e.g., use of relax-

ation techniques), and acceptance ("Accept each day as it comes;" "No matter howbad things are, they could always be worse").

HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 28

In another study examining correlations between several self-report humor scales

(CHS, SHRQ, and SHQ) and a measure of defensive coping styles, these sense of

humor measures were generally found to be related to the coping styles of mini-

mization (denial), replacement (sublimation), substitution (displacement), and rever-

sal (reaction formation), although the pattern of correlations differed for different

humor scales and for males and females (Rim, 1988). Finally, a study using the MSHSfound that higher scores on this humor scale were associated with greater use of

planful problem solving, positive reappraisal, distancing oneself, and emotional self-

management (Abel, 2002).

Overall, these studies suggest that high-humor individuals tend to have more

realistic and flexible and less threat-related cognitive appraisals of potentially

stressful situations, and that they tend to deal with stress using a variety of coping

strategies and defenses, particularly those involving self-protective cognitive refrain-

ing and emotional management. Once again, however, it is important to note that

the correlational approach of these studies does not permit us to determine the direc-

tion of causality. It may be that humor directly contributes to these cognitive appraisal

and coping styles, but it is also possible that humor is simply a by-product of these

styles of coping, or that both humor and associated coping styles are independent

consequences of some other traits (e.g., extraversion). Also, this trait approach to

measuring humor and coping styles does not provide much insight into the actual

processes involved when humor is used in coping, or the context in which this

occurs.

Humor in Coping with Specific Life Stressors

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, as well as some empirical research,

indicating that humor can be beneficial for emotional survival in dealing with extreme

and uncontrollable stressful situations such as prisoner of war and concentration

camps. One study evaluated the psychological health of 82 surviving crew members

of the USS Pueblo shortly after their release from 1 1 months ofimprisonment in North

Korea in 1969 (C. V. Ford and Spaulding, 1973). Humor was one of several coping

strategies that were found to be significantly associated with better psychological

adjustment. Coping humor in this stressful situation took the form of joking about

the characteristics of captors, giving funny nicknames to the guards and fellow pris-

oners, and telling jokes to one another.

More recently, Linda Henman (2001) reported a qualitative study based on inter-

views with more than 60 American servicemen who had been prisoners ofwar (POWs)in Vietnam. Despite being in captivity for over seven years and enduring isolation,

starvation, torture, and beatings, these individuals showed a remarkable level of adjust-ment. When asked about their methods of coping, most of the participants empha-sized the importance of humor in maintaining their resilience. Humor was described

as a way of eliciting positive emotions, maintaining group cohesion and morale, and

fighting back at the captors. By cracking jokes about the guards and about the


hardships they endured, the POWs were able to gain a sense of mastery and invinci-

bility in a situation over which they had no real control. It is worth noting that the

use of humor in coping occurred primarily during interactions among the POWs,rather than while they were alone. One participant observed that "the larger the

group, the more lighthearted things were. The smaller the group, the more intense

things were" (p. 86). Some of the prisoners even risked torture to tell a joke throughthe walls to another prisoner who needed cheering up.

The importance of humor in coping with atrocities has also been emphasized byconcentration camp survivors. In recounting his experiences as a prisoner in a Nazi

concentration camp during World War II, Viktor Frankl (1984) described humor as

"another of the soul's weapons in the fight for self-preservation" (p. 63). Recognizingthe importance of humor in maintaining morale, he and his fellow prisoners agreedto tell each other amusing stories every day. One favorite form of humor involved

joking about the ways their experience of imprisonment might affect them after their

liberation. For example, one prisoner joked that at future dinner engagements they

might forget themselves and ask the hostess to ladle the soup from the bottom of the

pot to get the treasured vegetables instead of the watery broth on top. Their jokes

also included a good deal of mockery of the guards, which gave them a feeling of

superiority over their captors. Such uses of humor were also depicted in Roberto

Benigni's 1997 movie, Life is Beautiful, in which a Jewish father engages in humorous

antics to shield his son from the horrors of a Nazi death camp, denying reality by pre-

tending that the Holocaust is nothing but a game in which the winner gets to ride in

a tank.

Although humor appears to be an effective way of coping with the extreme and

uncontrollable horror of being a prisoner of war, research on the use of humor in less

severe and more controllable stressful situations has been less clear-cut. For example,studies investigating the use of humor in coping with high-stress occupations have

produced mixed results. One study provided evidence for the effectiveness of humorin coping with stress among soldiers undergoing an intensive combat training course

in the Israeli army (Bizi, Keinan, and Beit-Hallahmi, 1988). Humor production and

appreciation were assessed using both self-report measures and peer ratings, and the

quality of coping under stress was evaluated using ratings by peers and commandingofficers. Greater peer-rated (but not self-rated) humor was found to be significantly

related to higher peer ratings of performance under stress and higher commander

ratings of initiative and responsibility. This was especially true for active humor (gen-

erating joking comments rather than merely laughing at others' humor). These find-

ings were interpreted as providing support for the view that a sense of humor is

associated with better coping during stressful military training.

In contrast, however, a recent study of health care staff working with AIDS and

cancer patients suggested that the use ofhumor as a coping strategy may actually have

negative rather than positive consequences (Dorz et al., 2003). The coping styles of

528 physicians and nurses in 20 hospitals in northern Italy were assessed using a

measure called the Coping Orientations to Problem Experiences (COPE) (Carver,

Scheier, and Weintraub, 1989), which contains a scale assessing the use of humor in


coping. In addition, the participants completed measures of anxiety, depression, and

emotional burnout. Surprisingly, the data analyses revealed that higher levels of

humor in coping were associated with greater emotional exhaustion and feelings of

depersonalization. Since this study was correlational, the direction of causality

between humor use and burnout is unclear. Nonetheless, the results cast some

doubt on the overall effectiveness of humor in coping in a high-stress health care

setting.

Some qualitative research on the use of humor in stressful occupations helps to

shed some light on these puzzling findings. Using a participant observer approach,

Joan Sayre (2001) observed the use of humor among staff in a psychiatric unit. She

found that it could be divided into two broad categories, a fairly benign "whimsical"

type (incongruous witticisms, bravado, and self-denigrating humor) and a more

aggressive "sarcastic" type (discounting, malicious, and gallows humor). Sarcastic

humor was more common than whimsical humor among the staff, and most of the

humor was directed at making fun of patient behaviors when out of earshot of the

patients. Although the relative benefits of the different types of humor were not

directly tested in this study, the author suggested that, whereas some of these uses of

humor seemed to be beneficial in managing anxiety in a socially acceptable manner,

the more aggressive forms appeared to promote negative, cynical attitudes toward

patients, which might actually have impaired therapeutic effectiveness and contributed

to morale problems.A similarly mixed view of the benefits of humor emerged in a qualitative study in

which emergency personnel were interviewed about their methods of coping with the

stress of handling dead bodies following major disasters such as airplane crashes and

explosions (McCarroll et al., 1993). Although some participants viewed humor as an

important tension reducer, others expressed reservations about its appropriateness.

Similar reservations were also expressed in a review of research relating to the poten-tial benefits and risks of the use of humor for coping in emergency work (C. Moranand Massam, 1997). Overall, then, the use ofhumor in coping with work-related stress

seems to have mixed benefits. As we have seen earlier in this chapter, probably not all

forms of humor are beneficial for coping; instead, whether or not it contributes to

better coping likely depends on the style or type of humor used.

Research on the use of humor in coping with life-threatening illness has also

yielded somewhat equivocal findings. In one study, 59 women who had been diag-

nosed with breast cancer were asked to complete measures of moods and coping

strategies (using the COPE) before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at 3-, 6-,

and 12-month follow-ups (Carver et al., 1993). Greater use of humor in copingwas found to be associated with reduced emotional distress, but this relation was

significant at only two of the five assessment times (three-month and six-month

follow-up).

In a larger study of coping with breast cancer, 236 patients completed the COPEas well as measures of emotional distress (Culver et al., 2004). No significant corre-

lations were found between humor in coping and any of the measures of emotional

distress, raising questions about the overall effectiveness of humor as a means of

O 9 HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH

coping with breast cancer. However, a limitation of both of these studies, as well as

some of the research on coping with work-related stress described earlier, was the use

of the COPE humor scale. This test has been shown to be positively correlated with

all four subscales of the Humor Styles Questionnaire, indicating that it does not dis-

tinguish between potentially beneficial affiliative and self-enhancing humor and

potentially detrimental aggressive and self-defeating humor styles (R. A. Martin et al.,

2003).

Using observational methods instead of relying on self-report humor scales, a lon-

gitudinal study of bereavement by George Bonanno and Dacher Keltner (1997) pro-vided evidence for a beneficial effect of benign humor in coping with the death of

one's spouse. Men and women who had lost their spouse six months previously were

videotaped during an interview about their relationship with their deceased partner.

The tapes were subsequently coded for Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles and

laughter, and measures of emotional adjustment and physical health were obtained at

14 and 25 months postloss. Analyses showed that a greater frequency of Duchenne

smiling and laughter (indicating genuine amusement) during the interview was a sig-

nificant predictor of fewer grief symptoms (e.g., intrusive memories of the de-

ceased, emotional numbness, inability to part with the deceased person's possessions,

depressed mood) at 14 and 25 months, even after controlling for moods at the time

of the interview. Thus, the ability to experience humor early in bereavement, as

demonstrated by smiling and laughter showing genuine mirth while talking about the

deceased spouse, was associated with better emotional adjustment more than a yearlater. Further analyses of the same data by Keltner and Bonanno (1997) found that

individuals who displayed more frequent Duchenne (but not non-Duchenne) laugh-ter during the interview reported more positive and less negative moods and showed

a greater dissociation between verbal reports of distress and autonomic arousal, sug-

gesting that one of the benefits of genuine humor in coping may be that it enables

the individual to dissociate from negative emotions.

In summary, although many authors have proposed that humor may be a benefi-

cial way of coping with occupational stress, bereavement, illness, and other majorstressors (e.g., Sumners, 1988; van Wormer and Boes, 1997), empirical evidence for

such benefits is limited and somewhat mixed. Once again, the inconsistent findings

may be due to a failure on the part of researchers to distinguish among different uses

of humor, some of which may be effective for coping in some types of situations but

less so in others, while other uses of humor may actually be detrimental in copingwith certain stressors. For example, highly aggressive or macabre gallows humor maybe almost essential to survival in the nearly hopeless situation of a prison camp, but

may contribute to feelings of cynicism, alienation, and burnout in a stressful workenvironment where other more constructive forms of coping are available. In addi-

tion, mildly self-deprecating and whimsical uses of humor might enhance groupmorale and cohesiveness in a work setting, but frequent teasing and practical jokes

might impair morale. Because of the multifaceted functions ofhumor and their widelyvaried social and emotional effects, it seems to be overly simplistic to view humor in


general as a purely beneficial method of coping. Further research is clearly needed to

investigate in more detail the potential benefits and pitfalls of different styles ofhumorin coping with particular stressors.

Sense of Humor as a Stress Moderator

The idea that humor is beneficial for coping with stress suggests that people with

a greater sense of humor should be less likely to suffer the adverse emotional and

physiological consequences of stressful life events. Although high-humor individuals

may be just as likely as their low-humor counterparts to experience stressors such as

financial losses, occupational pressures, unemployment, death of a loved one, and rela-

tionship breakups, their more frequent use of humor might enable them to appraise

these stressors as less threatening, garner more social support, and generally copemore effectively, resulting in less likelihood of becoming emotionally distressed and

physically ill as a consequence of the stressors.

A popular way of testing this hypothesis is the stress-moderator paradigm (Cohenand Edwards, 1989), in which researchers use questionnaires and other testing pro-cedures to assess three types of variables: (1) some aspect of sense of humor measured

as a personality trait; (2) the frequency of major stressful life events or minor daily

hassles experienced over a specified period of time in the recent past, such as the pre-

ceding six months; and (3) current levels of particular adaptational outcomes, such as

prevailing levels of depression or anxiety or the number of different illness symptoms

experienced recently. By using hierarchical multiple regression analyses with a stres-

sors sense ofhumor interaction term, researchers can determine whether the strengthof the association between the frequency of stressors and adaptational outcomes varies

as a function of level of sense of humor. The stress-buffering hypothesis is supportedwhen the correlation between stressors and negative outcomes is found to become

weaker as sense of humor increases across participants, and when high levels of stres-

sors are associated with less disturbance among high-humor as compared to low-

humor individuals (Figure 7). A number of studies using this paradigm have been

conducted over the past two decades, using a variety of different sense of humor tests,

stressor measures, and outcome variables.

Herbert Lefcourt and I reported three studies that employed different methods

of assessing sense of humor and found fairly consistent evidence of a stress-

moderating effect of humor (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983). In each of these

studies, we used a life events checklist to assess the number of major life stressors that

our undergraduate participants had experienced during the preceding year, and a test

of overall mood disturbance (depression, anxiety, tension, anger, fatigue) as our

outcome measure. Each study employed different methods of assessing sense of

humor. In the first study, using self-report trait humor measures, we found a signifi-

cant stress-buffering effect with the SHRQ, CHS, and SHQ-L, indicating that indi-

viduals with higher scores on these measures were less likely to report disturbed

moods after experiencing high levels of stressful experiences.


High

TJOO

Low

Low CopingHumor x

XX

X

High CopingHumor

Low

Negative Life EventsHigh

FIGURE 7 Stress-moderating effect of sense of humor. As the number of stressful life events

increases, individuals with higher scores on the Coping Humor Scale show a less steep increase

in mood disturbance as compared to those with lower scores on this humor measure (from

Martin & Lefcourt, 1983).

In the second study, we assessed sense of humor using a behavioral measure of

humor production ability. Participants were asked to make up a humorous narrative

in the laboratory, describing a number of objects in a funny way, and these mono-

logues were subsequently rated for overall funniness. Once again, the results revealed

a significant stress-moderating effect: individuals who were better able to make up a

funny monologue on demand in this rather difficult task showed less likelihood of

becoming emotionally distressed following high levels of life stress.

The third study employed a similar humor-production approach, this time involv-

ing an even more stressful laboratory situation. The participants were instructed to

create a humorous narrative while watching the Subincision film, and when the rated

funniness of their narratives was used as the measure of humor in regression analy-

ses, the results once again revealed a significant stress-buffering effect of humor pro-duction ability. We speculated that those individuals who were able to create funnier

narratives in these mildly stressful conditions in the laboratory might also be the ones

who tend to engage in humor more frequently during times of stress in their every-

day lives, enabling them to cope more effectively and therefore become less emo-

tionally distressed.

These encouraging initial findings were subsequently followed up in a number of

similar studies by various researchers, some of which replicated our stress-moderator

findings while others did not. One study using both cross-sectional (within one time


period) and prospective analyses (assessing stressors and sense of humor at one time

point to predict prevailing moods two months later), found a significant stress-

moderating effect of the CHS and SHRQ in the prediction of depression but not

anxiety (Nezu et al., 1988).

A study of coping among women business executives also found significant stress-

buffering effects of the CHS and SHRQ using a measure of minor daily hassles as the

stressor measure and tests of self-esteem and emotional burnout as the outcome meas-

ures (P. S. Fry, 1995). Another study found a significant stress-moderating effect of

the MSHS in the prediction of illness symptoms and anxiety, although the anxiety

finding was only significant for male participants (Abel, 1998). In addition, my student

James Dobbin and I found stress-buffering effects of three self-report humorscales on the negative relationship between daily hassles and levels of salivary

immunoglobulin-A, a measure of immunity, indicating that high-humor individuals,

compared to those with less of a sense of humor, were less likely to have reduced

immunity after experiencing high numbers of stressful hassles (R. A. Martin and

Dobbin, 1988).

Taking a somewhat different approach, Nicholas Kuiper, Kathy Dance, and I

(1992) used the stress-moderator paradigm to examine interactions between sense of

humor measures and both positive and negative life events in predicting positive rather

than negative moods. Consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis, we found sig-

nificant interactions between the frequency of stressful negative life events and the

CHS, SHRQ, and SHQ-M in predicting positive affect. Among individuals with low

scores on these humor scales, more frequent negative events were associated with

lower levels of positive moods, whereas those with high humor scores tended to main-

tain high levels of positive moods regardless of the number of negative events theyhad experienced. Analyses using the frequency of recent positive life events (e.g.,

enjoyable experiences, successful achievements) in the place of negative stressors also

revealed significant interactions with the two subscales of the SHQ in predicting pos-itive affect, indicating that the frequency of positive events was more strongly related

to increased positive moods for high-humor as compared to low-humor individuals.

These results suggested that, besides helping one to maintain one's positive moods

during times of stress, a sense of humor seems to enhance the enjoyment of positive

events.

In a later study, Kuiper and I (1998b) employed a daily diary approach to inves-

tigate the stress-buffering hypothesis. In this study, adult men and women from the

community were asked to keep a three-day record of each time they laughed, as well

as completing measures of the number of stressful events they experienced over the

course of each day and their levels of positive and negative moods each evening. Inter-

estingly, correlational analyses revealed that people who laughed more frequently over

the three days did not necessarily experience more positive or less negative moods

overall. Instead, the relationship between laughter and moods depended on their levels

of daily stress. In particular, a significant stress-moderating effect revealed that greater

numbers of stressful life events were associated with more negative moods, but only

among individuals with a low frequency of laughter. In contrast, individuals with a


higher frequency of daily laughter had relatively low levels of negative moods regard-

less of their stress levels. Similar effects were found with positive moods, but only

among men.

A recent study examined the potential role of humor in coping with the effects

of mathematics performance anxiety in women (T. E. Ford et al., 2004). Female

college students were administered a mathematics test in either high- or low-threat

conditions. In the high-threat condition, they were told that this test assesses math-

ematical aptitude and has been found to be more difficult for women than men; in

the low-threat condition, they were told that it assesses the process of general problem

solving and that men and women tend to perform equally well on it. In support of

the stress-buffering hypothesis, the results revealed a significant interaction between

scores on the CHS and threat condition in predicting performance on the test and

self-reported anxiety. Whereas all participants performed well on the test and had low

anxiety scores in the low-threat condition, greater coping humor was related to better

test performance and lower anxiety in the high-threat condition. These results sug-

gested that the use of humor in coping with stress may reduce the effects of stereo-

type threat on women's mathematics-related anxiety and performance.

Although the foregoing research was generally quite supportive of the hypothe-sis that a sense of humor may buffer the adverse psychological effects of stress, some

other investigations have failed to replicate these findings. One early study found no

evidence of a stress-buffering effect of humor on depression or anxiety (Safranek and

Schill, 1982). However, sense ofhumor was assessed in this study by means of a humor

appreciation test in which participants were asked to rate the funniness of several cat-

egories of jokes. The null results may have been due to the fact that the enjoymentof various types of jokes likely has little to do with the degree to which individuals

actually use humor in coping with life stress (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986).

A more serious challenge to the stress-buffering hypothesis came from a study byAlbert Porterfield (1987) with more than 200 participants that did not find any evi-

dence of stress-moderating effects of humor using the CHS and SHRQ as humor

measures, the same test of major life stressors that Lefcourt and I had used in our

original studies, and measures of depression and physical illness symptoms as the

outcome variables. Another study with more than 700 participants also failed to find

a stress-moderating effect of the CHS in predicting physical illness symptoms(Korotkov and Hannah, 1994). Similarly, a study of 334 undergraduates did not find

a significant stress-moderating effect of coping humor on mood disturbance (Labott

and Martin, 1987).

Even more confusing results were found in a study by Craig Anderson and LynnArnoult (1989). In this study, undergraduates completed the CHS, a measure of majorlife stressors, and tests of negative affect, depression, insomnia, physical illness symp-toms, and an overall health rating. No evidence of a stress-moderating effect of copinghumor was found on negative affect, depression, or illness symptoms. On the other

hand, the interaction between CHS and stressors was significant in the prediction of

overall wellness and insomnia. However, closer examination of the interaction

revealed that the results for wellness were in the wrong direction: high-humor


individuals showed a stronger association between stressful events and poor health

than did low-humor individuals. Only the results for insomnia were in the predicteddirection.

A study byJames Overholser (1992) also produced some results contradicting the

stress-buffering hypothesis. Undergraduate participants completed three different

types of humor measures: the CHS, humor appreciation (participants' funniness

ratings of a set of cartoons), and humor production ability (rated funniness of cartoon

captions created by participants). The outcome measures were tests of depression,

loneliness, and self-esteem. Regression analyses using the CHS revealed a significant

interaction with major life stressors only in the prediction of depression, amongfemales but not males. However, the correlation tables reveal that this effect was in

the wrong direction: females with high CHS scores showed a stronger association

between stress and depression than did those with low scores on this humor test. Afew significant interactions were also found between stressors and humor production

ability in predicting loneliness (for both males and females) and self-esteem (for

females only). However, since the direction of these effects was not reported, it is

unknown whether they also were in the wrong direction.

In summary, the stress-moderator research using the multiple regression

approach has yielded some rather inconsistent evidence for stress-buffering effects of

a sense of humor. Nine studies found at least some significant stress-moderating

effects, three obtained no significant results, and two produced results in the wrongdirection. There does not seem to be any clear pattern to the particular humor scales,

stressor measures, or outcome variables that did and did not produce significant find-

ings. Although there are enough positive findings in this research to warrant some

optimism about the stress-buffering potential of a sense of humor, it is difficult to

discern from this research which particular uses of humor are beneficial for copingwith which sorts of stressors to produce which types of outcomes.

Process Approaches to Investigating Humor in Coping

The inconsistent patterns of findings from the stress-moderator studies described

in the previous section may be due in part to several inherent weaknesses of this

research methodology (Somerfield and McCrae, 2000). These include reliance on trait

measures of humor, retrospective assessment of stressors occurring over a period of

time, and use of a between-person, cross-sectional design. Since the variables are typ-

ically assessed at only one point in time, this stress-moderator paradigm provides onlya static "snapshot" of what is an inherently dynamic coping process. Furthermore, a

high score on a trait measure of sense of humor does not necessarily mean that an

individual actually used humor to cope with the particular stressors that are measured

by the life events checklists. Consequently, this approach does not allow researchers

to examine directly how particular types of humor are used on a day-to-day basis to

cope with specific ongoing stressors.

Howard Tennen and colleagues have advocated the use of a more "real-time"

approach to stress and coping research, assessing proximal stressors, coping efforts,


and adaptational outcome variables repeatedly in individuals as they occur over a

period of days or weeks (Tennen et al., 2000). By capturing these variables closer to

their actual occurrence, researchers can minimize recall error while studying coping

processes within individuals over time. Such data can be analyzed using multilevel

analysis procedures such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk and

Raudenbush, 1992), which combine the advantages of both an idiographic and a

nomothetic approach. This approach to analyzing stress-moderating effects of humoris conceptually similar to the multiple regression method described in the previous

section, but the focus is on changes within individuals over time rather than differ-

ences between individuals at one time. In other words, the methodology enables

researchers to examine whether individuals show evidence of higher or lower levels

of well-being on days when they engage in particular styles of humor to cope with

particular types of stressors, relative to other days when they experience similar

stressors but do not use those humor styles.

So far, this process-oriented approach has been used in only one study examin-

ing potential stress-buffering effects of humor, which was conducted by my former

graduate student, Patricia Doris (2004), as part of her PhD research. Twice a week

for three weeks, university students participating in this study were asked to log onto

an Internet website at the end of the day and complete a brief questionnaire, record-

ing their stressful experiences, negative moods, and uses of humor during that day.

The humor questions were modified items from the Humor Styles Questionnaire,

asking participants how frequently they had engaged in affiliative, self-enhancing,

aggressive, and self-defeating styles of humor that day. Thus, humor was assessed in

terms of the frequency with which individuals engaged in various humor behaviors

on a particular day, rather than their typical or habitual humor tendencies, as in

trait measurement approaches. Stressful events and moods were also assessed for the

same day, rather than being measured retrospectively over weeks or months. HLManalyses were used to examine the interactions between day-to-day stressors and

humor use in relation to daily negative moods both within and between participants

concurrently.

The results revealed significant stress-moderating effects for self-enhancing,

aggressive, and self-defeating humor, but not affiliative humor. In each case, a highernumber of stressful events was associated with more negative moods on days when

participants did not engage in these types of humor, whereas stressful events did not

result in such negative moods on days in which participants engaged more frequentlyin these three humor styles. Although these findings will need to be replicated before

we can place much confidence in them, they provide preliminary evidence for the

stress-buffering effects of three of the four HSQ humor styles.

The results with self-enhancing humor were exactly as expected, suggesting that

the use of this healthy style of humor to cope with stress is an effective way of regu-

lating one's moods when experiencing daily stressors. The finding of similar results

with both aggressive and self-defeating humor may at first seem surprising, but theyalso make some sense. As suggested earlier, although aggressive uses of humor maybe potentially injurious to relationships in the long run, aggressively making fun of

people and situations that are perceived as threatening to one's well-being may be a

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 29

way of reducing immediate feelings of threat and associated negative moods. Simi-

larly with self-defeating humor, on days when one is experiencing a great deal of stress,

the use of humor to ingratiate oneself with others and deny one's feelings may be a

way of boosting one's spirits and mitigating the negative emotional effects of stress,

at least in the short run. Moreover, the temporary alleviation of negative emotion mayact as a reinforcer for the use of these aggressive and self-defeating types of humor,even though the longer-term effects may be detrimental to well-being, explaining whythese potentially maladaptive uses of humor tend to be maintained in some individ-

uals as habitual coping styles. Thus, although aggressive and self-defeating humor

styles may mitigate the emotional effects of stress in the short term, they may be more

maladaptive in the longer run.

Interestingly, the use of affiliative humor did not appear to moderate the effects

of daily stress on negative moods. Instead, this type of humor showed a direct mood

effect, with greater uses of daily affiliative humor being associated with less negativeand more positive moods regardless of stress levels. It is worth noting that in this

study, Doris also used the traditional cross-sectional multiple regression paradigm to

examine stress-moderating effects of humor, using several trait measures of humor

including the HSQ, CHS, and SHRQ, major life events assessed retrospectively

over six months, and prevailing moods. The failure to find any significant stress-

moderating effects in these analyses further underscores the weaknesses of the cross-

sectional trait approach.The process-oriented repeated measures approach, using multilevel analysis pro-

cedures such as HLM, appears to be a promising methodology for further research

on the role of humor in coping with stress. Future research could also examine the

relative benefits of particular styles of humor in coping with different types of stres-

sors. For example, stressors could be categorized on the basis of whether they involve

conflicts with close friends or acquaintances, problems at work, failures to achieve an

academic or work goal, and so on, as well as the participant's degree of perceivedcontrol over the events. Different styles of humor may be more or less effective with

different types of stressors.

Researchers might also wish to consider other potentially relevant styles ofhumorbesides those assessed by the HSQ. Other adaptational outcomes should also be exam-

ined, including specific mood states, psychophysiological arousal levels, illness symp-toms, and so forth. In addition, different sampling procedures could be used over

different time periods. For example, the availability of small handheld computers nowmakes it possible to collect ongoing data relating to stressors, humor use, moods, and

even physiological arousal in "real time" over the course of the day. These methods

may enable researchers to examine the process of humor use in coping in a more fine-

grained manner.

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH

As we have seen throughout this book, humor typically occurs in the context of

social interaction. Until recently, however, as in other areas of the psychology of


humor, much of the research on humor and mental health has tended to ignore its

inherently social nature. Viewing humor as a form of interpersonal interaction allows

us to think about how it may contribute to social relationships, which in turn mayhave an impact on the individual's psychological health.

There is a great deal of research indicating that social relationships have a pro-

found influence on one's level of happiness and general psychological well-being (for

a review, see Berscheid and Reis, 1998). Summarizing the research in this area, HarryReis (2001) stated that "there is widespread evidence that socially involved personsare happier, healthier, and live longer than socially isolated persons do" (p. 58). For

example, married people, on average, tend to have better mental and physical health

than do unmarried people. Research has also shown that people with better social

skills, enabling them to form close and satisfying relationships, are less likely to expe-

rience depression, anxiety disorders, and other forms of psychological disturbance

(Segrin, 2000). Meaningful relationships with others are also important for the pro-

vision of social support, which can protect the individual from the adverse effects of

stress (Berscheid and Reis, 1998). On the other side of the coin, there is an abundance

of research showing that loneliness is related to unhappiness and a range of mental

and physical problems (Berscheid and Reis, 1998).

The importance of social connectedness for well-being likely has a biological

basis. Evolutionary psychologists view social relationships as one of the most impor-tant factors responsible for the survival of the human species (D. M. Buss and Kenrick,

1998). The evolutionary significance of close relationships is also emphasized byattachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), which suggests that the ability to form secure inter-

personal attachments originates in the relationship between infants and their care-

givers, and continues to play an important role in one's close relationships and in the

ability to regulate emotions throughout one's life.

In view of the social functions of humor discussed previously in this book, it

seems reasonable to propose that humor may play a role in the initiation and main-

tenance of satisfying and enduring social relationships, such as those with close

friends, marriage partners, and colleagues at work (Shiota et al., 2004). These rela-

tionships, in turn, can contribute in positive ways to the individual's level of mental

health. Besides enhancing partners' enjoyment of the relationship through playful

interactions, socially skilled uses of humor may aid in confronting and resolving

difficulties and facilitate the resolution of conflicts that inevitably occur in all

relationships.

In addition, the humor that is shared by relationship partners during times of life

stress may be an important way they help each other to cope. Thus, humorous inter-

actions between partners can be a way of regulating emotion, augmenting positive

enjoyment and reducing feelings of distress originating either within or outside the

relationship itself. On the other hand, maladaptive uses of humor, such as aggressive

teasing or self-defeating humor, may have detrimental effects on relationships. In

particular, individuals who use humor in these unhealthy ways may have difficulty

initiating and maintaining close relationships, leading to adverse consequences for

well-being.

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH

Humor as a Facilitator of Healthy Relationships

Some correlational studies have examined associations between trait measures of

humor and several variables relevant to personal relationships. For example, self-

report humor scales have been found to be positively correlated with measures of inti-

macy (Hampes, 1992, 1994), empathy (Hampes, 2001), social assertiveness (Bell et al.,

1986), and interpersonal trust (Hampes, 1999). As noted in Chapter 5, studies of

dating and married couples have shown that individuals who perceive their partner to

have a good sense of humor tend to be more satisfied with their relationship, as com-

pared to those who view their partner as less humorous (Rust and Goldstein, 1989;

Ziv and Gadish, 1989). Moreover, people who are happily married often attribute

their marital satisfaction, at least in part, to the humor they share with their spouse

(Lauer et al., 1990; Ziv, 1988a). Researchers observing styles of interaction between

married spouses during discussions of problems in their marriage have found that

spouses who are more satisfied with their marriage, as compared to those who are

unhappily married, show higher levels of humor and laughter and more reciprocated

laughter during these problem discussions (Carstensen et al., 1995; Gottman,

1994).

However, there is also some evidence that humor may play a negative as well as

a positive role in close relationships, particularly in men. Herbert Lefcourt and I found

that, among women, scores on the CHS were positively correlated with marital sat-

isfaction and positive engagement in a problem discussion between spouses, whereas

for men higher CHS scores were associated with lower marital satisfaction and greaterdestructiveness (negative affect and verbal negativity) during the discussion (Lefcourt

and Martin, 1986). A study of newly married couples (described in Chapter 5) found

that greater humor expression by husbands during a problem discussion, when accom-

panied by higher levels ofmajor stressful events in the couple's life, predicted a greaterlikelihood that couples would be separated or divorced 1 8 months later (Cohan and

Bradbury, 1997). The authors suggested that husbands' use of humor during times of

stress may be a way for them to temporarily deflect problems and avoid the anxietyassociated with talking about them, but without actively confronting and resolvingthem. Hence, humor expressed by the husband in the context ofmajor life stress mightbe associated with less distress in the short term but not with longer-term marital

stability.

The possibility of negative as well as positive effects of humor in relationships is

consistent with our discussion throughout this chapter. It is only quite recently,

however, that researchers have begun to address these issues in the context of rela-

tionships, attempting to identify negative as well as positive forms ofhumor. In a qual-

itative study of dating relationships, for example, Amy Bippus (2000b) drew a

distinction between humor that serves a bonding function and more negative types,

such as cruel, inappropriate, and overbearing humor that may be injurious to the

relationship. In addition, the recently developed Relational Humor Inventory,

which was designed for studying humor in close relationships, contains separate

scales for assessing positive, negative, and instrumental uses of humor by each

9 HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH

partner (de Koning and Weiss, 2002). Preliminary data indicate that these different

scales are differentially associated with marriage partners' levels of relationship

satisfaction.

A few recent studies have also made use of the HSQ to examine associations

between these potentially healthy and unhealthy humor styles and variables having to

do with close relationships. For example, in our initial studies with the HSQ (R. A.

Martin et al., 2003), we found that individuals with higher scores on affiliative humorand lower scores on self-defeating humor tended to report higher levels of intimacyin their close relationships. In addition, self-enhancing humor was positively related

to the degree to which participants felt satisfied with the social support provided bytheir friends, whereas self-defeating humor was negatively correlated with this

variable.

One of my graduate students, Gwen Dutrizac, and I found that higher affiliative

and self-enhancing humor scores were associated with lower levels of loneliness and

interpersonal anxiety, whereas higher self-defeating humor was related to higher levels

of these negative feelings (R. A. Martin and Dutrizac, 2004). Some studies have also

examined associations between the HSQ scales and measures relevant to attachment.

In a study of Lebanese university students, Shahe Kazarian and I found that partici-

pants with higher scores on the self-defeating humor scale were significantly more

likely to report anxious attachment in their relationships with close friends (Kazarian

and Martin, 2004). On the other hand, those with higher affiliative humor scores were

significantly less likely to report avoidant attachment styles.

Similarly, in their study of Belgian high school and university students, Saroglouand Scariot (2002) reported a correlation between self-defeating humor and insecure

attachment in participants' relationships both with their friends and with their

mothers. Self-defeating humor was also associated with more fearful-avoidant and

anxious-ambivalent models of the self. Overall, these findings indicate that affiliative

and self-enhancing humor are associated with a variety of positive relationship indi-

cators, whereas self-defeating humor is particularly related to more negative experi-

ences of relationships in general.

Other studies have examined associations between humor styles on the HSQ and

participants' satisfaction with specific relationships. As part of her doctoral disserta-

tion, Patricia Doris (2004) asked university students who were in a dating relation-

ship to rate their own and their partners' humor styles using the HSQ, as well as their

satisfaction with the relationship. Self-ratings and partner ratings of affiliative and self-

enhancing humor were found to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction.

On the other hand, greater use of aggressive humor in oneself or one's partner was

associated with greater dissatisfaction with the dating relationship.

Similarly, in a study of humor in the initiation and maintenance of same-sex

friendships among university students, another one of my students, Jennie Ward

(2004), found that individuals who engaged in more affiliative and less aggressivehumor were rated by their friends as being more enjoyable to interact with, and as

fulfilling more positive friendship functions, such as companionship, intimacy, emo-tional security, and affection. These studies suggest that the use of affiliative and (to

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 30

a somewhat lesser extent) self-enhancing humor may be beneficial for relationship

satisfaction, whereas aggressive humor in either partner seems to be particularly

associated with relationship dissatisfaction.

These differential correlations between HSQ scales and satisfaction in close rela-

tionships suggest that healthy humor styles may be viewed as a type of social compe-tence, whereas unhealthy humor styles may be related to social skills deficits. To test

this hypothesis, Jeremy Yip and I examined the HSQ, as well as the trait form of the

STCI, in relation to subscales of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ)

(Buhrmester et al., 1988), a measure of the degree to which participants perceivethemselves to have various social skills needed to initiate and maintain satisfying rela-

tionships (Yip and Martin, in press). The results showed that higher scores on affil-

iative and self-enhancing humor and trait cheerfulness were associated with greater

reported abilities in both initiating relationships (e.g., "Finding and suggesting thingsto do with new people whom you find interesting and attractive") and personal dis-

closure (e.g., "Confiding in a new friend and letting her or him see your softer, moresensitive side").

In contrast, greater use of aggressive humor was related to lower reported abili-

ties both in providing emotional support (e.g., "Helping a close companion cope with

family or roommate problems") and conflict management (e.g., "When angry at a

companion, being able to accept that he or she has a valid point of view even if youdon't agree with that view"), whereas trait cheerfulness was positively associated with

both of these abilities. Finally, greater use of self-defeating humor was associated with

lower ability to engage in negative assertion (e.g., "Telling a companion you don't like

a certain way she or he has been treating you").

Similar patterns of correlations between the HSQ and the ICQ were also reported

by Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (2004). Overall, these findings provide supportfor the idea that the positive forms of humor may be viewed as a type of social skill,

whereas aggressive and self-defeating humor may be considered to be social skills

deficits. These correlational findings need to be followed up with further research

exploring in more detail the appropriate and inappropriate ways humor is actually

used in each of these social skill domains.

The studies discussed so far have examined correlations between humor scales

and overall ratings of relationship satisfaction. This approach to measuring satisfac-

tion requires participants to make generalizations about a large number of interac-

tions with another person that have taken place over an extended period of time, and

to summarize this complex process in a single rating. To obtain more process-orientedand proximal assessments of the quality of social interactions, two recent studies have

employed daily diary methods, obtaining repeated assessments of participants' posi-

tive and negative experiences with daily social interactions as they occurred over a

period of several weeks.

John Nezlek and Peter Derks (2001) had participants keep a daily record every

day for two weeks, recording all of their social interactions lasting more than 10

minutes, and rating each one for enjoyment, level of intimacy, and feelings of self-

confidence. Using HLM to analyze the data, the researchers found that participants


with higher scores on the Coping Humor Scale rated their daily social interactions as

being more satisfying and they also reported feeling greater self-confidence duringthese interactions. However, coping humor was unrelated to the total number of

people interacted with each day or to the perceived intimacy of interactions. Theauthors suggested that people who use humor to cope may be more enjoyable to be

with, providing others with more positive forms of support through their humor,

resulting in greater enjoyment and efficacy in interactions.

In the other study of this kind, Gwen Dutrizac and I conducted a similar daily

diary study of social interactions using the HSQ as our measure of humor (R. A.

Martin and Dutrizac, 2004). We had undergraduate participants keep a diary of daily

social interactions two days a week for three weeks. We focused only on interactions

with "close others," such as close friends, romantic partners, parents, and siblings. At

the end of each day, the participants indicated how many close others they interacted

with that day, the number of positive and negative verbal interactions and activities

they had with these people, and the frequency of both giving and receiving empathic

responses in these interactions.

HLM analyses revealed that higher affiliative humor on the HSQ was associated

with more frequent daily positive activities with close others (doing enjoyable things

together), while self-enhancing humor was correlated with more frequent positive

verbal interactions (engaging in enjoyable conversations). On the other hand, both

aggressive humor and self-defeating humor were related to more frequent negativeverbal communications and activities (e.g., arguments and criticism). In addition, self-

enhancing humor was associated with more giving and receiving of empathic

responses, whereas aggressive humor was related to less giving and receiving of

empathy. Like Nezlek and Derks (2001), we found no correlation between HSQ scales

and the overall frequency of interactions with others, suggesting that humor is related

to the quality but not the quantity of social interactions. Taken together, these two

studies provide further evidence that greater use of adaptive humor styles and less use

of aggressive and self-defeating humor styles are related to more satisfying day-to-

day interactions with others.

Another approach to investigating the role of different humor styles in relation-

ships is to observe directly individuals' humor while they are interacting with rela-

tionship partners. We have recently developed a reliable observational coding systemfor rating the degree to which individuals engage in each of the four styles of humoridentified by the HSQ during social interactions. This method was used in a recent

study to rate the degree to which each member of pairs of heterosexual dating couplesused affiliative and aggressive humor during a 10-minute discussion of a problem in

their relationship (Martin, Campbell, and Ward, 2006). The results indicated that,

although both styles of humor were positively correlated with observer ratings of fun-

niness (demonstrating that both are indeed humorous), they had very different rela-

tionship outcomes. The more an individual was observed to use affiliative humor

during the discussion, the more his or her partner reported increased feelings of close-

ness, less emotional distress, greater perception that the problem had been resolved,

and greater overall satisfaction with the relationship. In contrast, the more individu-

als were observed to use aggressive humor, the less their partners felt the problem

INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 3(

had been resolved and the less satisfied they were with the relationship overall. Thus,this study was able to show a direct link between these positive and negative styles of

humor and relationship partners' subsequent feelings and perceptions, demonstratingthat humor can have both positive and negative effects on close relationships, depend-

ing on whether it is used in affiliative or aggressive ways.In summary, the research on social relationships using the HSQ, although as yet

quite limited, has provided general support for the view that these positive and neg-ative styles of humor are differentially correlated with a number of variables havingto do with individuals' experiences of close relationships, which in turn are importantfor mental health. Higher levels of both affiliative and self-enhancing humor tend to

be associated with greater skill in initiating relationships and self-disclosure of per-

sonal information, more positive interactions with close others, more satisfying

relationships with friends and dating partners, and lower levels of loneliness and inter-

personal anxiety. Affiliative humor is also related to lower levels of avoidant attach-

ment and greater intimacy in relationships, while self-enhancing humor is associated

with greater perceived social support and giving and receiving of empathy.In contrast, greater use of aggressive humor is related to more frequent negative

interactions with others, less giving and receiving of empathy, reduced ability to

manage conflict and provide empathy in social relationships, and lower satisfaction

with dating relationships and friendships, both for oneself and one's partner. Thus,

although aggressive humor is less strongly related to overall emotional well-beingvariables (as we saw previously), it seems to be particularly associated with social skills

deficits and maladaptive social interaction styles and therefore more unsatisfactory

relationships.

Finally, greater use of self-defeating humor tends to be associated with a reduced

ability to assert oneself in relationships, more negative interactions with close others,

higher levels of loneliness, interpersonal anxiety, and anxious and insecure attachment,

and lower perceptions of intimacy and social support. Overall, then, the neuroticism-

related characteristics of self-defeating humor that were seen with general well-beingvariables seem to carry over into one's feelings about social relationships as well,

although, unlike aggressive humor, this negative style of humor does not seem to be

related to negative feelings and dissatisfaction in one's relationship partners.

It is important to note, however, that many of these studies were correlational,

using trait measures of humor, and were therefore unable to determine the direction

of causality between humor and relationship satisfaction. Additional research usingobservational methods is needed to determine whether different styles of humor

have causal effects on relationship outcomes. Also, further research using event-

sampling procedures might be useful for studying humor use in everyday social

events as they occur in natural contexts (for a discussion of this methodology, see Reis,

2001).

Interpersonal Aspects of Coping Humor

While humor appears to play a role in facilitating healthy personal relationships,

it is also important to note that social relationships likely play a significant role in the


use of humor in coping with life stress, which I discussed earlier. As we have seen

throughout this book, humor typically occurs in the context of social interactions,

and this is also likely true of the use of humor in coping. As seen in the study of

POWs in Vietnam (Henman, 2001), individuals usually do not begin laughing or

cracking jokes about their problems when they are all by themselves. Instead, copinghumor typically takes the form of joking comments and other types of playful com-

munication among individuals during or shortly after the occurrence of stressful

events.

For example, by cracking jokes with one another during the course of a particu-

larly stressful work situation, coworkers may be able to alter their appraisals of the

situation and thereby minimize the amount of negative emotion that might otherwise

be elicited. Alternatively, while sitting together in a coffee shop at the end of a stress-

ful day, they might begin jesting and laughing about some of the day's events, enablingthem to relieve tension and manage residual emotions. Similarly, coping humor can

arise when one person is describing his or her experiences of a recent or ongoingstressful situation to a close friend or romantic partner. Humor may be introduced

into the discussion either by the individual who experienced the stressor or by the lis-

tener who is providing emotional support. In either case, the humor may provide the

stressed individual an alternative way of looking at the stressor, alleviating feelings of

distress and enhancing positive emotions. Thus, as sociologist Linda Francis (1994)

pointed out, humor may be used to manage other people's emotions as well as one's

own.

To date, only a few studies have examined these interpersonal aspects of humoras a coping mechanism. In one recent study, Sharon Manne and her colleagues (2004)

observed 10-minute interactions between women who were undergoing treatment for

breast cancer and their spouses. These dyads were instructed to discuss a cancer-

related issue identified by the patient as being a problem and about which she wanted

support from her partner. Each turn of speech during the discussion was coded for

various types of social interaction, including benign, nonsarcastic humor. Sequential

analyses showed that when husbands responded with humor to the cancer patients'

self-disclosures, the patients subsequently tended to report significantly lower levels

of distress about their cancer. These findings suggest that a husband's sensitive use of

humor in response to his wife sharing her worries and concerns about breast cancer

may lessen the threat of the cancer, helping her to gain perspective and reduce feel-

ings of distress.

Research by John Gottman and his colleagues (1998), which was discussed in

Chapter 5, also shows how humor may be a way of regulating emotions in one's mar-

riage partner. This study found that, when married couples were engaged in discus-

sions about problems in their marriage, the use of nonsarcastic humor by wives was

predictive of greater marital stability over the following six years, but only when the

wives' humor led to a reduction in their husbands' heart rate during the conversation.

This finding suggests that humor may be beneficial during times of marital stress whenit is used as a way of emotionally calming one's spouse and thereby enabling him to

remain engaged in problem-solving efforts.

CONCLUSION 3C

Amy Bippus (2000a) also investigated the outcomes experienced by individuals

when their friends use humor in attempting to comfort them during times of stress.

In this study, university students were asked to complete a questionnaire about a recent

time when they confided to a friend about an emotionally upsetting experience or

problem and the friend responded with humor. The results indicated that the effec-

tiveness of the friend's humorous response (i.e., the degree to which it resulted in

increased positive moods and feelings of empowerment, and decreased rumination

about the problem) depended on the quality (i.e., funniness and appropriate timing)of the humor, its relevance to the problem, and the degree to which it seemed to be

given purposefully. In addition, humor responses appeared to be most effective when

they were given in the context of a relationship in which humor is a typical part of

the interactions between the partners, where both partners normally use humor in

coping with stress (as shown by high scores on the CHS), and when the humor was

presented in a way that conveyed feelings of concern and a lack of negative criticism

or disparagement, and provided an alternate perspective on the problem.In summary, a limited amount of research has examined the interpersonal context

in which humor is used to cope with stress, and the processes of social interaction that

are involved. This is a potentially very fruitful topic for future investigation. For

example, future research could investigate the effects of humor when it is introduced

by the person who is experiencing stress as compared to when it is introduced by the

person providing social support, as well as the relative benefits of different styles and

topics of humor with different types of stressors.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen in previous chapters of this book, humor is a complex process

involving cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal aspects. All of these facets of humorhave implications for mental health and emotional well-being. When people joke with

one another about their problems or about a potentially threatening life situation,

they are able to change their perceptions of the situation, their emotional state, and

the nature of their relationships with each other. However, the research reviewed in

this chapter suggests that the link between humor and psychological health is more

complex than it might first seem.

Experimental laboratory research has provided a considerable amount of supportfor the view ofhumor as an emotion-regulation mechanism. At least in the short term,

humor produces an increase in positive feelings of exhilaration and well-being, alongwith perceptions of mastery and control, and a reduction in negative feelings such as

anxiety, depression, and anger. There is also research evidence that humor can miti-

gate the negative emotions, physiological arousal, and behavioral impairments that

often occur as a result of stressful life experiences.

While humor may be a useful mechanism for regulating emotions and copingwith stress in the short term, however, correlational research using trait measures of

sense of humor suggests that the longer-term implications for mental health may


depend on the way people use humor in their daily lives. Individuals who use humorto cope in ways that are sensitive to their own and other people's broader psycholog-ical needs are likely to experience enhanced feelings of self-esteem and emotional

well-being and more satisfying relationships with others in the longer term. On the

other hand, if humor is used to temporarily boost one's positive emotions and miti-

gate stress at the expense of others by means of sarcasm, teasing, or other types of

aggressive humor, it may lead in the longer term to interpersonal difficulties and con-

flicts, and generalized feelings of alienation from others. Similarly, if humor is used

at one's own psychological expense by ingratiating oneself with others, excessively dis-

paraging oneself, or avoiding dealing constructively with the underlying causes of

one's problems, it may produce temporary feelings of well-being, but at the cost of

less healthy functioning in the longer term.

Overall, then, it would appear that humor is inherently neither psychologically

healthy nor unhealthy. Just because someone is very funny and able to make others

laugh does not necessarily mean that he or she is particularly well-adjusted psycho-

logically. As suggested by earlier psychologists such as Maslow (1954) and Allport

(1961), the role ofhumor in mental health seems to have as much to do with the kinds

of humor an individual does not display as the kinds of humor he or she does express.

Another way of putting this is that a healthy sense ofhumor is an important com-

ponent of overall mental health. People who are psychologically well-adjusted, with

satisfying personal relationships, tend to use humor in ways that enhance their own

well-being and closeness to others. For example, they may engage in friendly jokingto communicate an optimistic outlook on a stressful situation, to encourage others

during times of distress, or to express underlying feelings of acceptance and affection

in the midst of an argument. However, less well-adjusted individuals who are aggres-sive and hostile, or those with low self-esteem and a vulnerability to negative emo-

tionality, tend to use humor to communicate their aggression and cynicism, to

manipulate, demean, or control others, to ingratiate themselves, or to hide their true

feelings from others. Indeed, since no one is completely psychologically healthy or

completely unhealthy, most people likely use humor to some degree in all of these

ways at different times and in different contexts.

Throughout this chapter, I have noted several limitations of the existing research

as well as promising questions and methodologies for future research. A major limi-

tation of much of the research in this area is the use of correlational methodologies,which do not allow researchers to determine the direction of causality between humorand well-being. It is unclear from the existing research whether more healthy forms

of humor contribute to greater psychological health or whether different styles of

humor are merely a consequence of healthy and unhealthy psychological functioning.Other methodological limitations include the use of cross-sectional designs, self-

report trait measures of sense of humor, retrospective assessments of stressors, and

general, traitlike evaluations of well-being and relationship satisfaction. All of these

preclude the possibility of studying the ongoing processes involved in the use of

humor in coping with stress and negotiating interpersonal interactions. These

approaches also tend to ignore the interpersonal nature and functions of humor.

CONCLUSION 3(

Rather than merely seeking to find simple correlations between sense of humorscales and various aspects of mental health, or interactions between sense of humorand life stress measures in predicting overall well-being, future research should

attempt to determine which types of humor in which social contexts are beneficial

and detrimental for which aspects of mental health. Some humor styles, such as

aggressive humor, may be beneficial for some aspects of mental health (e.g., short-

term regulation of one's own emotions) but deleterious for others (e.g., long-termmaintenance of close relationships). They may also be more beneficial for coping with

some types of stressors (e.g., being a prisoner of war) than others (e.g., dealing with

difficult patients in a psychiatric ward).

To address these kinds of questions, I have suggested that future research could

make use of daily experience methods or event-sampling procedures, in which the

actual use of different styles of humor during the course of the day is evaluated in

"real time" over a period of days or weeks (Reis and Gable, 2000). This approachcould be used to study humor as a coping mechanism by including repeated assess-

ments of stressful events and ongoing indicators of emotional and physical well-being.The role of humor in social relationships could also be examined by including mea-

sures of various aspects of daily social interactions. Another potentially useful

approach for further research is the use of observational methods to study the

processes of humor in interpersonal interactions. For example, the social functions of

humor, as well as its effect on coping with stress, could be examined during conver-

sations between dyads (friends, married partners, or even strangers) while they are

discussing a stressful situation that has recently been experienced by one or both of

them.

Finally, there has been little research examining the question of whether individ-

uals can improve their sense of humor and learn to use it in more healthy and less

unhealthy ways. To address this question, intervention studies are needed, making use

of role-playing procedures, creativity exercises, and other techniques over multiple

sessions to train individuals in effective humor skills. Outcome measures could be used

to examine the effectiveness of such humor-training sessions, relative to other non-

humorous interventions, in improving humor usage and enhancing aspects of psy-

chological well-being. This type of research is necessary before we can begin to

advocate the use of humor and laughter to promote mental health.

CHAPTER 10

Humor and Physical Health

TH<ie idea that humor and laughter are goodfor one's health has become very popular in recent years, among the general publicas well as many health care practitioners. This is actually not a new idea; the health

benefits of laughter have been touted for centuries. The medicinal value of mirth and

cheerfulness, as well as the health-impairing effects of negative emotions, were

affirmed thousands of years ago in a biblical proverb which states that "a merry heart

does good like a medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones" (Proverbs 17:22).

Since the time of Aristotle, a number of physicians and philosophers have sug-

gested that laughter has important health benefits, such as improving blood circula-

tion, aiding digestion, restoring energy, counteracting depression, and enhancing the

functioning of various organs of the body (for reviews, see Goldstein, 1982; Moody,1978). This idea has become increasingly popular in recent years, as modern medical

discoveries like endorphins, cytokines, natural killer cells, and immunoglobulins have

been added to the list of bodily substances that are thought to be beneficially affected

by humor and laughter.

Within psychology, research on the potential benefits ofhumor on physical health

falls within the domain of health psychology, which is concerned with the way behav-

ior, cognitions, and emotions can influence health, wellness, and illness. Health psy-

chologists conduct research on such topics as the physiological effects of psychosocial

stress; the influence of cognitive appraisals, coping, social support, and other psycho-

logical factors on stress; the effects of emotions on immunity; psychological aspects

309

10 HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH

of pain and disease; the promotion and maintenance of health; and the relationship

between patients and health care providers.

Rejecting the traditional biomedical model of health and illness as overly sim-

plistic, health psychologists espouse a biopsychosocial model, which views health as

determined by psychological, social, and cultural factors, in addition to biological

causes (Engel, 1977). Clinical health psychology is a professional specialty area within

clinical psychology that seeks to apply the research findings of health psychology and

related disciplines to the development of treatment interventions for helping peopleto cope effectively with stress, modify their behavior in more health-enhancing ways,

manage pain, cope with chronic illness, and so forth.

Over the past two decades, about 50 published articles have reported empirical

investigations that bear on the relationship between humor and physical health. In

addition to psychologists, these studies have been conducted by researchers from

medicine, nursing, and other fields. In this chapter, I will begin by discussing

recent developments in the popularization of claims for health benefits of humor and

laughter. I will then explore several theoretical mechanisms by which humor and

laughter could potentially influence health. In the remainder of the chapter, I will

provide an overview of research on the effects of humor on various aspects of health,

including immunity, pain tolerance, blood pressure, illness symptoms, and longevity,

examining the current state of the evidence and discussing some of the questions that

remain to be answered (for a more detailed review of this research, see R. A. Martin,

2001).

POPULAR BELIEFS ABOUT HUMOR AND HEALTH

The current popularity of ideas about medicinal benefits of humor and laughtercan be traced in large part to the publication by Norman Cousins of an article in the

New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Anatomy of an illness" (Cousins, 1976),

which was later expanded into a best-selling book by the same name (Cousins, 1979).

Cousins, a well-known American magazine editor, recounted in these writings howhe had been diagnosed in the early 1960s with a very painful, chronic, and debilitat-

ing rheumatoid disease called ankylosing spondylitis, and was told by his doctor that he

had only a l-in-500 chance of recovering fully. Aware that medical science had little

to offer in the way of cure except medication to ease the pain of the disease, Cousins

searched through the medical literature and learned about recent research suggesting

health-impairing effects of stress-related negative emotions, as well as potential ben-

efits of vitamin C. With the cooperation of his physician, he decided to check himself

out of the hospital and undergo a self-prescribed treatment plan involving frequent

daily laughter, along with massive doses of vitamin C. To induce positive feelings

which, he hoped, would counteract any adverse effects of negative emotions, he

laughed as often as possible by watching old episodes of the television program Candid

Camera, Marx Brothers movies, and other comedy films, and reading joke books. The

story of his eventual recovery from the disease is now well-known.

POPULAR BELIEFS ABOUT HUMOR AND HEALTH

During the course of this treatment, Cousins observed that 10 minutes of hearty

laughter had a reliable analgesic effect, providing two hours of pain-free sleep. In addi-

tion, he reported that episodes of laughter reliably resulted in reductions in the

sedimentation rate, the rate at which red blood cells descend in a test tube, which is

a measure of inflammation. These observations led to the hypothesis that laughterreduces pain, perhaps by stimulating the production of endorphins, the morphinelikesubstances produced by the brain, as well as the suggestion that laughter enhances

immune system functioning.

Although the story of Norman Cousins is widely cited as evidence for the health

benefits of laughter, it is important to note that such anecdotal cases do not providescientific evidence, but need to be followed up with controlled experiments. It is

unknown whether his recovery was due to the laughter, the Vitamin C, particular

personality traits such as the will to live, or to some totally unrelated factor, or whether

the disease may even have been misdiagnosed in the first place. Indeed, in a later

article, Cousins (1985) himself downplayed the role of laughter in his recovery,

emphasizing the importance of positive emotions in general as a context for the appli-

cation of traditional medical treatments.

The case of Norman Cousins appeared at a time when many North Americans

were becoming dissatisfied with traditional Western medicine, and alternative

approaches to medicine were growing in popularity. The idea that laughter could have

curative properties fit well with this Zeitgeist. Over the years since then, numerous

popular magazine articles have reported claims of scientific research purportedly

showing evidence of beneficial effects of humor and laughter on various aspects of

health, further bolstering these beliefs in the public mind. As one example, an article

in a recent issue of Reader's Digest (Rackl, 2003) claimed that scientists have demon-

strated that humor and laughter can alleviate allergy symptoms, increase pain toler-

ance, strengthen the immune system, reduce the risk of stroke and heart disease, and

even help diabetics control their blood sugar levels.

Stimulated by these ideas, a burgeoning "humor and health movement" has devel-

oped, made up of nurses, physicians, social workers, psychotherapists, educators,

clowns, and comedians, who enthusiastically promote the therapeutic benefits of

humor through conferences, seminars, workshops, books, videotapes, and Internet

websites. As noted in Chapter 1, the Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor(AATH) is a professional society of individuals whose members are interested in the

application of humor and laughter in medicine, social work, psychotherapy, educa-

tion, and so on (available at www.aath.org).In addition, the "laughter club movement," which was started in India in 1995 by

a physician named Madan Kataria, has witnessed remarkable growth in the past

decade, forming chapters throughout the world. Believing that even nonhumorous

laughter is beneficial for physical, mental, interpersonal, and spiritual health, adher-

ents of this movement meet regularly to engage in group laughter as a form of yogicexercise. According to Kataria (2002), the mission of the movement is nothing less

than to bring about "world peace through laughter!" The humor and health move-

ment also received a boost in 1998 with the release of the movie Patch Adams,

HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH

starring Robin Williams, which depicted the true story of an unconventional physi-

cian who augmented his medical interventions by making his patients laugh in

response to his comic interactions with them (described also in P. Adams and Mylan-der, 1998). Laughter rooms, comedy carts, and "therapeutic clowns" have now become

familiar sights in many hospitals.

The remarkable range of bodily functions that are said to be helped by laughterand humor, according to contemporary claims, reminds one of the advertised bene-

fits of patent medicines a century ago. Laughter is said to provide exercise for the

muscles and heart, produce muscle relaxation, improve blood circulation, reduce the

production of stress-related hormones such as catecholamines and cortisol, enhance

a wide range of immune system variables, reduce pain by stimulating the productionof endorphins, reduce blood pressure, enhance respiration, regulate blood sugar levels,

and remove carbon dioxide and water vapor from the lungs (W. F. Fry, 1994; McGhee,1999). As such, laughter has been said to provide some degree of protection against

cancer, heart attacks, stroke, asthma, diabetes, pneumonia, bronchitis, hypertension,

migraine headaches, arthritis pain, ulcers, and all sorts of infectious diseases rangingfrom the common cold to AIDS (W. F. Fry, 1994; McGhee, 1999). With such a rangeof effects, it would seem that laughter threatens to put the major pharmaceutical com-

panies out of business!

Many of the claimed health benefits of laughter are unproven and appear quite

fanciful. For example, although it is often claimed that laughter provides the same

health benefits as jogging and other forms of physical exercise, there is no publishedresearch evaluating this claim. It seems likely that one would need to laugh for quite

a long time in order to consume a significant number of calories; people are likely

better off taking up a more vigorous form of exercise if they wish to lose weight or

enhance their cardiovascular fitness.

Other claims are essentially unfalsifiable and therefore of little scientific merit.

An example is the suggestion that laughter reduces the risk of bronchial infections

and pneumonia by expelling moist residual air from the lungs, resulting in a reduc-

tion of excess moisture that would otherwise encourage pulmonary bacterial growth

(W. F. Fry, 1994). The difficulty with this claim (apart from the fact that there is no

empirical evidence that laughter actually reduces moisture levels in the lungs) is that

one could make an equally convincing argument for health-enhancing benefits of

laughter regardless of the direction of its physiological effects. If it turned out that

laughter somehow increased, rather than decreased, the pulmonary moisture level,

one could come up with an equally plausible-sounding argument that it is beneficial

because it keeps the lungs from drying out and shriveling up. Thus, regardless ofwhat

effect laughter may have on a particular system of the body, a "just-so story" can be

concocted to explain why this effect is beneficial. It is interesting to note that one cur-

mudgeonly nineteenth-century author used similar kinds of arguments in the oppo-site way to support his contention that laughter is actually harmful to physical health

(Vasey, 1877)!

Part of the attraction of humor and laughter as a form of alternative medicine is

that it is inherently enjoyable and, unlike many other health-promoting activities, it

HOW MIGHT HUMOR AFFECT HEALTH?

does not require giving up pleasurable habits like smoking and overeating. The fact

that it is free, in contrast to the high costs of many traditional and nontraditional

treatments, makes it even more attractive. Given the popularity of these views, one

runs the risk of being labeled as a killjoy if one questions whether humor and laugh-ter actually produce the medical benefits that are claimed. However, a scientific

approach requires that we examine the evidence.

As we saw in the previous chapter, there is good reason to believe that laughtercan improve one's mood and that a healthy sense ofhumor can be beneficial for copingwith stress and enriching one's relationships with others, enhancing one's quality of

life. What is the evidence, however, that humor and laughter can also have a benefi-

cial impact on aspects of physical health, such as strengthening the immune system,

reducing pain, or prolonging the duration of one's life? As we will see, the existing

evidence is rather weaker and more inconsistent than the media reports would lead

us to believe.


The idea of health benefits of humor is more complex than it might first appear.For one thing, physical health is not a unitary concept. There are many different

aspects and components of health, and they are not all correlated. Factors that are

beneficial for some aspects of health might even be harmful for others. In addition,

as previous chapters of this book have shown, humor is a complex phenomenon,

involving cognitive, emotional, behavioral, physiological, and social aspects. Differ-

ent components of humor could conceivably affect different aspects of health in a

variety of ways (R. A. Martin, 2001).

If humor is beneficial for health, then presumably people with a greater sense of

humor enjoy better physical health and live longer lives. But what aspects or compo-nents of "sense of humor" are likely to be health-enhancing? As noted in Chapter 7,

there are numerous ways of conceptualizing this personality trait. Different dimen-

sions of sense of humor might be related to health in different ways, and some maybe more relevant to health than others. Indeed, some aspects or styles of humor (e.g.,

aggressive or self-defeating humor) might actually be detrimental to health in some

ways.

Thus, it is important to consider the possible mechanisms by which humor could

influence health. Systematic research is needed to investigate each of these potential

mechanisms and to determine which components and aspects of humor are impor-tant and which are not. Only when we have gained such knowledge can we begin to

design effective therapeutic interventions based on these findings. In general, five

potential mechanisms may be considered, each involving different aspects of humor

(and hence different ways of conceptualizing what it means to have a "healthy" sense

of humor), and each suggesting different implications for health care interventions.

First, health benefits might result from some of the physiological effects of

laughter itself, as suggested by many people over the years. As we saw in Chapter 6,


laughter is a facial and vocal expression of the emotion of mirth that involves respi-

ratory, muscular, and vocal activity. As mentioned earlier, psychiatrist William Fry

(1994) suggested that the muscular activity occurring in many parts of the body during

vigorous laughter may be viewed as a form of aerobic exercise, burning calories and

providing many of the well-known health benefits of physical exertion. He also sug-

gested that laughter enhances pulmonary function, enabling the lungs to expel stale

residual air containing built-up carbon dioxide and water vapor, thereby potentially

reducing the risk of bronchial bacterial infections.

These ideas are quite speculative, but if they are correct, then it would be neces-

sary for people to actually laugh in order to gain such benefits; simply being amused

or feeling cheerful without laughing would not be enough. Indeed, laughter mighteven be expected to provide these effects without humor (e.g., feigned or forced laugh-

ter), as advocated by leaders of the laughter club movement (Kataria, 2002). The

object of one's laughter would also seem to be unimportant: hostile laughter directed

at other people should be just as effective as more friendly forms. From this per-

spective, the person with a "healthy" sense of humor is the one who laughs uproari-

ously as often as possible, and therapeutic humor interventions should be aimed

simply at encouraging people to engage in frequent and intense laughter.

A second potential mechanism whereby humor could conceivably influence health

is through the physiological effects of the positive emotion (i.e., mirth) that accompa-nies humor and is expressed by laughter. As noted in Chapter 6, this pleasurable

emotion is mediated by activity in the limbic system and other parts of the brain and,

like other emotions, produces changes in the autonomic nervous system and

endocrine system that extend throughout the body. Some of these physiological effects

of mirth might have beneficial health effects. For example, the increased heart rate

resulting from sympathetic arousal might provide a sort of cardiac workout (W. F. Fry,

1994).

We also saw in chapter 6 that there is evidence from animal studies suggestingthe production of endorphins and other opiates during play, which might also occur

with humor-related mirth, resulting in a greater tolerance for pain (Panksepp, 1998).

Researchers are just beginning to explore the various neuropeptides that are released

by the brain during states of positive as well as negative emotions (Panksepp, 1993),

and some of these mirth-related biochemicals might conceivably have beneficial

effects on various components of the immune system as well as other bodily functions

(W F. Fry, 1994).

It should be noted that, although popular writings on humor and health often

attribute these sorts of physiological changes to vigorous laughter, they are more

properly viewed as effects of the emotion that is communicated by laughter, as noted

in Chapter 6. Thus, actually laughing out loud may not be necessary to achieve these

effects: humor-induced feelings of mirth may be all that is needed. Nonhumorousexercises for inducing laughter, such as those used in laughter clubs, might not be

very effective unless they also elicit the positive emotion of mirth along with the

laughter.


In addition, it is worth noting that these potential benefits might not be specific

to mirth, but might also result from other positive emotions that are not specifically

humor-related, such as joy, happiness, and love, which might share many of the samebrain circuits (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003). Thus, positive emotions, regardless of

how they are generated, may have analgesic (Bruehl, Carlson, and McCubbin, 1993)or immunoenhancing effects (Stone et al., 1987) or may have an "undoing" effect

on the potentially harmful cardiovascular consequences of negative emotions

(Fredrickson and Levenson, 1998). If these hypotheses are correct, then they givehumor and laughter a less unique role in health enhancement, as they are only one

means of increasing positive emotions. In this view, a "healthy" sense of humor would

involve a generally cheerful temperament characterized by happiness, joy, optimism,and a playful approach to life (Ruch and Carrell, 1998), and therapeutic interventions

should aim at increasing people's positive emotions by a variety of means in addition

to humor. The promotion of laughter would be less important than seeking to

enhance positive emotions.

Third, humor might benefit health through cognitive mechanisms, by moderatingthe adverse effects of psychosocial stress on health. A large body of research has

demonstrated that stressful life experiences can have adverse effects on various aspectsof health, such as suppression of the immune system (Uchino, Kiecolt-Glaser, and

Glaser, 2000) and increased risk of heart disease (Esler, 1998), through the chronic

production of various stress-related hormones such as catecholamines and cortisol.

As noted in Chapter 9, humor may be an effective way of coping with stress, reduc-

ing its adverse effects on physical health as well as moods. A humorous outlook on

life and the ability to see the funny side of one's problems may enable individuals to

cope more effectively with stress by allowing them to gain perspective and distance

themselves from stressful situations, enhancing their feelings of mastery and well-

being in the face of adversity (R. A. Martin et al., 1993; R. A. Martin and Lefcourt,

1983). As a consequence, these individuals may experience fewer of the adverse effects

of stress on their physical health.

In this hypothesized stress-moderator mechanism, the cognitive-perceptual

aspects of humor would be more important than laughter, and the ability to maintain

a humorous outlook during times of stress and adversity would be particularly impor-

tant; humor during nonstressful times would be less relevant to health. This view also

introduces the possibility that certain types ofhumor (e.g., perspective-taking humor)

may be more adaptive and health-enhancing than others (e.g., excessively self-

disparaging humor). If this view is correct, therapeutic humor interventions should

be viewed as a component of stress management training, focusing on teachingindividuals ways of using humor to cope with stress in their daily lives.

Fourth, humor might indirectly benefit health through an interpersonal mecha-

nism by increasing one's level of social support. As noted in Chapter 9, individuals

who are able to use humor effectively to reduce interpersonal conflicts and tensions

and to enhance positive feelings in others may consequently enjoy more numerous

and satisfying social relationships. As a result, they may enjoy the well-established


stress-buffering and health-enhancing effects of close relationships (House, Landis,

and Umberson, 1988; Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton, 2001). This hypothesized mech-

anism focuses on interpersonal aspects of humor and the social competence with

which individuals express humor in their relationships, rather than the frequency with

which they engage in laughter. The target and nature of the humor becomes even

more important in this model. Here, a "healthy" sense of humor would involve the

use of humor to enhance relationships with others in an affiliative and nonhostile

manner. Therapeutic humor interventions would be seen as an adjunct to social

skills training, teaching individuals to develop a socially facilitative sense of

humor, along with other skills for developing, maintaining, and enhancing intimate

relationships.

Finally, a fifth (behavioral} mechanism by which humor might hypotheticallyhave a beneficial effect on health is by promoting a healthy lifestyle. For example, one

could speculate that people with a better sense of humor, because of their presumably

higher self-esteem and more optimistic outlook on life, are more likely to engage in

healthy behaviors such as obtaining regular physical exercise, eating healthy foods,

maintaining an appropriate body weight, and refraining from smoking and excess

alcohol consumption. However, research evidence bearing on this hypothesis,

although rather limited, actually suggests that, if anything, the effects are the

opposite: high-humor individuals seem to be more likely to engage in unhealthy

lifestyles.

For example, in a longitudinal study ofhumor and physical health among Finnish

police officers, Paavo Kerkkanen, Nicholas Kuiper, and I (2004) found that higherscores on some sense of humor scales (but not others) were associated with greater

obesity, increased smoking, and factors associated with greater risk of cardiovascular

disease. Similarly, the Terman life-cycle study, which followed a large sample of highly

gifted individuals over many decades (to be discussed in more detail later in this

chapter), found that those who were rated as being more cheerful as children (i.e.,

having a higher sense of humor and greater optimism) were more likely to smoke and

consume alcohol as adults (L. R. Martin et al., 2002).

These apparent associations between humor and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors

may be due in part to the more extraverted personality traits of high-humor individ-

uals (Ruch, 1994). Past research has shown that extraverted individuals, in compari-son with introverts, are more likely to drink alcohol (M. Cook et al., 1998), to smoke

(Patton, Barnes, and Murray, 1993), and to be obese (Haellstroem and Noppa, 1981).

Although such findings of an association between sense of humor and unhealthy

lifestyle behaviors need to be studied in more detail before we make too much of

them, they do suggest that humor may actually have some deleterious as well as poten-

tially beneficial health consequences.In summary, there are several different theoretical models of the mechanisms

by which humor might potentially influence health. Each model suggests different

approaches to the application of humor in health care and health promotion. In order

to ensure that treatments are likely to be effective, systematic research should be

conducted to test each of these models before developing such interventions.

HUMOR AND IMMUNITY

HUMOR AND IMMUNITY

The immune system is an exceedingly complex and dynamic network of manytypes of white blood cells (lymphocytes) and biochemical molecules distributed

throughout all parts of the body, whose function is to discriminate between "self" and

"nonself" antigens and protect the body from foreign invaders (Sanders, Iciek, and

Kasprowicz, 2000; Uchino et al., 2000). Given the large number of components and

the dynamic nature of the immune system, there is no single way of measuring overall

immunocompetence. In recent years, research in the field of psychoneuroimmunol-

ogy has demonstrated that there are intimate connections between the immune systemand the brain, which communicate with one another by means of a variety of mole-

cules such as neurotransmitters, hormones, neuropeptides, and cytokines. Psycholog-ical factors can therefore influence immunity, just as immunological factors can affect

psychological functioning.

There is now considerable evidence that different emotional states have an in-

fluence on immunity through these brain-immune system communication channels

(for a review, see Booth and Pennebaker, 2000). In particular, some research indicates

that negative emotions, such as anger, depression, and fear, can adversely affect various

components of immunity, and that these effects can result in poorer health. However,the effects vary for different aspects of immunity, with some immunity componentsalso showing improvement in response to negative moods. The effects also seem to

depend in part on the psychosocial context. It is therefore incorrect to assume that

there is a one-to-one correspondence between specific emotions and specific immune

system changes (Booth and Pennebaker, 2000).

Overall, potential effects of positive emotions on immunity are less well-

documented than the effects of negative emotions, although this may be due to less

attention having been given to positive emotions by researchers. Nonetheless, several

studies have investigated hypothesized effects on immunity of the positive emotion

associated with humor.

Experimental Investigations

To study effects of humor on immunity, researchers have conducted experimentsin which they obtained blood or saliva samples before and after participants watched

humorous videotapes in the laboratory, and then conducted assays on these samplesto determine the levels ofvarious components of immunity, such as the secretion rates

of various immunoglobulins and the ability of different types of lymphocytes to detect

and combat antigens. A significant prevideotape to postvideotape change in these

immunological variables suggests possible effects of humor on immunity.Of course, these experiments also require appropriate control conditions, in

which participants also watch nonhumorous (but equally interesting) videotapes, to

ensure that any observed effects are due to humor and not some other factor, such as

simply watching an interesting and enjoyable videotape, or the increases and decreases

in biological variables (diurnal cycles) that occur naturally over the course of the day.


To determine whether any observed effects are specific to humor, or are also found

with other positive or negative emotions, it is also desirable to include control con-

ditions in which other emotions are elicited.

In addition, to explore possible mechanisms of any observed humor-related

changes in immunity, researchers should examine the correlations between these

immunological changes and such variables as the frequency of laughter and ratings of

funniness, enjoyment, and moods obtained from the participants in the comedy con-

dition. The relative strengths of these correlations can provide an indication of

whether the effects are due to laughter in particular, or to the positive emotions asso-

ciated with humor, or to other factors. For example, if changes in immunity are found

to be significantly related to the duration or intensity of laughter, even after control-

ling for mood changes, this would suggest that laughter influences immunity even

beyond the effects of mirth. Unfortunately, most of the research to date has not

included the control conditions and observational measures needed to explore these

sorts of questions.

The majority of the immunity-related experiments that have been conducted so

far have examined only secretory immunoglobulin A (S-IgA), a component of the

immune system found in saliva that is involved in the body's defense against upper

respiratory infections. A number of investigations outside of the humor field have

shown phasic (short-term) increases in levels of S-IgA in saliva while subjects are

performing emotionally stressful, exciting, or challenging tasks in the laboratory

(Harrison et al., 2000), whereas more tonic (longer-lasting) decreases in S-IgA levels

have been found during times of life stress, such as when students are writing majorexaminations (Deinzer et al., 2000).

In the first published study of humor and immunity, Kathleen Dillon and her

colleagues had nine college students individually watch a 30-minute comedy video-

tape (Richard Pryor performing stand-up comedy) and an emotionally neutral control

videotape in counterbalanced order (Dillon, Minchoff, and Baker, 1985). The data

analyses revealed a significant increase in the levels of S-IgA in saliva while the par-

ticipants watched the comedy film, whereas no change in S-IgA was observed duringthe control film. Thus, humor appeared to produce at least a short-term improve-ment in this component of immunity.

These findings inspired Herbert Lefcourt and his colleagues to conduct a series

of three experiments with larger sample sizes examining effects of exposure to comedyon S-IgA (Lefcourt, Davidson-Katz, and Kueneman, 1990). In each study, participants

either listened to a comedy audiotape or watched a comedy videotape in small groups.All three studies showed significant increases in S-IgA following exposure to comedyrelative to a baseline measure, providing further support for the findings of Dillon

and her colleagues (1985). However, these studies had some methodological weak-

nesses that made the results somewhat inconclusive. Many of the baseline assessments

of S-IgA were taken on different days, at different times of day, and in different loca-

tions than the postcomedy measures. In addition, these studies did not have adequatecontrol groups. It is therefore difficult to know whether the observed effects were

HUMOR AND IMMUNITY 31

specifically due to humor or whether they may have resulted from some other uncon-

trolled variables.

Better controls were used by David McClelland and Adam Cheriff (1997) in a

series of three studies in which participants were shown either a comedy or a docu-

mentary control videotape. No consistent prevideotape to postvideotape increases in

S-IgA were observed in the documentary videotape control conditions, whereas, in

the comedy conditions, more subjects showed an increase than a decrease in S-IgA.Similar findings ofhumor-related increases in S-IgA have been obtained in three other

experiments (Labott et al., 1990; Lambert and Lambert, 1995; Perera et al., 1998).

However, two additional well-controlled experiments failed to replicate these findings

(Harrison et al., 2000; Njus, Nitschke, and Bryant, 1996), casting some doubt on their

reliability.

Besides the research on S-IgA, a few other laboratory experiments have examined

effects of exposure to comedy videotapes on a variety of immunological variables

assayed in blood samples. One of these, conducted by Lee Berk and his colleagues

(1989), received a great deal of attention in the media and has frequently been cited

in the humor and health literature. The participants in this study were 10 male medical

personnel, five ofwhom were assigned as a single group to watch a 60-minute comedyvideo, whereas the other five sat quietly in a room together for an hour. Blood sampleswere collected via intravenous catheters in the forearm at several intervals before,

during, and after the stimulus conditions, and assays were conducted for 19 immu-

nity and endocrine-related variables. Among the participants in the comedy video

group, the results showed significant increases from baseline in six immunity-relatedvariables (T cell helper/suppressor ratio, blastogenesis, IgG, IgM, natural killer cell

activity, and complement C3), suggesting immunoenhancing effects of humor.

However, since comparisons were not reported for the control condition, we can onlyassume that similar changes did not also occur in those participants who did not watch

the humorous video.

Although some promising results were obtained in this study, there are a numberof methodological limitations that weaken our ability to draw firm conclusions. These

include a small sample size, an inadequate control condition, and a very large numberof statistical analyses, increasing the risk that the observed effects could simply have

been due to chance. In addition, most of the immunity-related results of this studywere never published in a peer-reviewed journal article, but were only reported in

conference papers, leaving many details of the methodology and analyses unknownand therefore difficult to evaluate. Since the researchers did not measure the amountof laughter or moods of the participants, they were unable to examine the degree to

which these factors mediated the effects. Overall, although this study showed some

intriguing findings, it does not provide the sort of conclusive scientific evidence of

immunoenhancing effects of laughter that have often been claimed for it.

Some additional experiments have also reported humor-related changes in various

components of immunity measured in blood samples (L. S. Berk et al., 2001; Itami,

Nobori, and Texhima, 1994; Kamei, Kumano, and Masumura, 1997; Mittwoch-Jaffe


et al., 1995; Yoshino, Fujimori, and Kohda, 1996). However, these studies also tended

to have only small numbers of participants and inadequate controls. In addition, the

results were rather inconsistent across the studies, with some showing immuno-

enhancing effects, others showing immunosuppressive effects, and still others showingno significant effects with particular components of immunity. For example, whereas

Berk and colleagues (2001) reported increases in T-cell helper-suppressor ratio and

Natural Killer (NK) cell activity with exposure to comedy, Kamei and associates

(1997) did not replicate the T-cell ratio finding and found a decrease in NK cell activ-

ity. Overall, then, although the existing experimental laboratory research suggests that

exposure to comedy may have some short-term effects on some components ofimmu-

nity, more systematic and well-controlled research is needed before any firm conclu-

sions can be drawn concerning the exact nature of these effects.

There appears to be a particular interest in the potential health benefits of humor

among researchers in Japan, as witnessed by some of the studies mentioned above, as

well as several other more recent investigations that were conducted in that country.

Hajime Kimata recently reported research suggesting that humor can reduce allergic

reactions in individuals with allergies. In one study, after watching a humorous movie,

individuals with dermatitis showed less severe allergic reactions in response to skin

prick tests involving allergens such as house dust mites and cat dander, as comparedto the more severe reactions that occurred after they watched a nonhumorous docu-

mentary film (Kimata, 2001).

In another study comprising two separate experiments, patients with allergy-

related bronchial asthma showed reduced asthmatic reactions to allergens after theyhad watched a comedy videotape, whereas no such effect was found with a nonhu-

morous control film (Kimata, 2004b). This same researcher also found that watchinga comedy film, but not a nonhumorous control film, resulted in a reduction in certain

allergy-related immunoglobulins in the tears of patients with allergic conjunctivitis,

an inflammatory eye condition (Kimata, 2004a). Taken together, these experiments

suggest that, rather than enhancing immunity, humor may suppress the excessive

immune responses that occur in certain allergic reactions by reducing the secretion

of immunoglobulins such as IgE and IgG.In another Japanese study, after watching a comedy videotape, healthy partici-

pants were found to have a significant increase in free radical scavenging capacity

(FRSC), as indicated by increased levels (relative to baseline) of certain molecules in

their saliva that are involved in the elimination of free radicals from the mouth (Atsumiet al., 2004). Free radicals are molecules that have been implicated in inflammation,

aging, and the development of some types of cancer. Although this study was limited

by the fact that it did not include a nonhumorous control condition, the amount of

increase in FRSC was found to be significantly correlated with participants'

ratings of their enjoyment of the videotape, suggesting a possible mediating role of

mirth.

An additional Japanese study, although unrelated to immunity, is worth men-

tioning here. In this investigation, individuals with type 2 diabetes were found to have

significantly lower blood glucose levels after eating a meal on a day when they had

HUMOR AND IMMUNITY 32

previously attended a comedy show, as compared to a day when they had attended a

nonhumorous, monotonous lecture (Hayashi et al., 2003). The authors theorized that

neuroendocrine effects of mirthful emotion may have suppressed the elevation of

glucose, suggesting that engaging in humor might be beneficial to people with dia-

betes to help control their glucose levels. These recentJapanese investigations suggesta number of intriguing possibilities of beneficial immunological and endocrine effects

of humor-related positive emotion and laughter. However, the evidence is still far

from conclusive. Further research is needed to replicate and explore the mechanisms

of these effects in greater detail, using larger samples and more rigorous methodolo-

gies, before we can be confident of their reliability and clinical utility.

Correlational Studies

A limitation of the sorts of experiments described in the previous section is that

they are not able to determine whether there are any long-term health benefits of

humor and laughter on immunity. Even though there may be statistically significant

short-term changes in immunity-related variables with exposure to comedy in the lab-

oratory, it is important to determine whether such changes have any longer-term clin-

ical significance. If humor has clinically meaningful beneficial effects on the immune

system, then it should be possible to demonstrate that individuals who engage in

laughter and humor more frequently (i.e., those with a greater sense of humor) have

generally greater immunocompetence and are less likely to suffer from infectious ill-

nesses over time. In other words, there should be a positive correlation between sense

of humor and immunity-related variables and a negative correlation between sense of

humor and rates of infectious illnesses. Although research on this question is limited,

the results to date have generally been disappointing.With regard to infectious illnesses, McClelland and Cheriff (1997) found no cor-

relation between several self-report measures of sense of humor and the frequency or

severity of colds experienced by participants, either retrospectively or prospectivelyover a period of three months. Several studies have also examined correlations

between levels of S-IgA measured in saliva and participants' sense ofhumor as assessed

by self-report scales. Although two early studies with very small sample sizes reportedsizable positive correlations between scores on the Coping Humor Scale (CHS) and

S-IgA (Dillon et al., 1985; Dillon and Totten, 1989), some later studies with larger

sample sizes failed to replicate these findings (Labott et al., 1990; Lefcourt et al., 1990;

R. A. Martin and Dobbin, 1988).

It should be noted, however, that immunity levels are likely to fluctuate consid-

erably over time, so that levels obtained in a single assay may be too unreliable to

expect significant correlations with a trait measure of humor. Future research should

aggregate immune measures across a number of assays over a period of time and

examine correlations with trait humor test scores. An even better method would be

to take a longitudinal approach, examining possible associations between day-to-dayfluctuations in participants' experiences of humor, laughter, and cheerfulness, and

corresponding fluctuations in their levels ofvarious immunity variables over a number


of days or weeks. A link between humor and immunity would be supported if increases

and decreases in immunity from day to day are systematically related to the experi-

ence of more or less humor on those days.

Finally, James Dobbin and I conducted a study to determine whether sense of

humor as a personality trait might moderate the effects of life stress on immunity

(R. A. Martin and Dobbin, 1988). Numerous past studies have shown that stress can

have an adverse effect on various components of the immune system (Uchino et al.,

2000). As we saw in Chapter 9, there is some evidence that people with a greater sense

of humor are better able to cope with stress, and they might therefore also be less

likely to experience the adverse effects of stress on immunity. In our study, using

undergraduate students as participants, we administered a measure of daily stress and

assayed S-IgA levels in saliva samples on two different occasions 1 V2 months apart.

Sense of humor was assessed using several self-report scales, including the SHRQ,CHS, and SHQ.

The results revealed that daily stress scores at Time 1 were negatively related to

S-IgA levels at Time 2, indicating an immunosuppressive effect of stress. More impor-

tantly, significant stress-moderating effects were found on this relationship with three

of the four sense ofhumor measures. In each case, participants with low humor scores

showed strong negative correlations between stress and immunoglobulins, whereas

this association was much weaker or even nonexistent among those with high humorscores. Although these findings are in need of replication, they suggest that the stress-

moderating effects of humor that have been found in other studies with mood mea-

sures may also extend to effects of stress on immunity.

Overall, despite the claims that are often made in the popular media and "humorand health" literature, the existing evidence for beneficial effects of humor on immu-

nity is still rather weak and inconclusive. Although a number of laboratory experi-

ments have found significant changes in some components of immunity while

participants were watching humorous videotapes, these findings have not always been

replicated, with some results even going in opposite directions in different studies.

The correlational studies have generally failed to find significant associations between

sense of humor and immunity, raising questions about the long-term clinical signifi-

cance of the short-term effects that have been found in the laboratory.

It should also be noted that none of the laboratory studies assessed the frequencyof Duchenne laughter and smiling or the funniness of the comedy videotapes. Future

research should include such measures to examine whether they are correlated with

the strength of any observed changes in immunity, thereby providing further evidence

that the effects are due to mirth. The studies also have tended to be very small, with

numerous methodological weaknesses. Part of the difficulty here seems to be that,

unfortunately, very little funding is available for conducting these sorts of experiments,which tend to be quite costly. Research on possible effects of humor on immunitydoes not seem to have a high priority for the government granting agencies and phar-maceutical companies that fond most of the health-related research. Consequently,researchers in this area have had to make do with small-scale studies, cutting corners

HUMORANDPAIN 32

on the types of control groups and other design features that are needed in order to

draw firm conclusions.

HUMOR AND PAIN

As noted earlier in the chapter, the case ofNorman Cousins suggested that laugh-ter may have a pain-reducing effect, perhaps due to the hypothesized release of endor-

phins in the brain when people are experiencing mirthful emotion. Since then, several

experiments have been conducted to determine whether humor can be shown to

increase pain tolerance under controlled laboratory conditions. These investigations

have employed research designs similar to those used in the immunity research, testing

participants' pain threshold or tolerance before and after exposing them to comedyvideotapes and comparing the findings with those obtained in nonhumorous control

conditions.

Pain threshold and tolerance are measured using procedures that were developedin traditional experimental studies of pain, in which participants are exposed to painful

(but not harmful) stimuli. The most popular of these is the cold pressor procedure,in which participants are asked to immerse their arm in a tub of ice cold water for upto a few minutes. Pain threshold is defined as the amount of time elapsed before the

participant reports the stimulus to be painful, while pain tolerance is the duration of

time before the individual cannot tolerate the stimulus any longer and wishes to

terminate it (i.e., remove his or her arm from the ice water).

These experiments have generally been more carefully controlled and method-

ologically rigorous than the immunity research (likely because they are less expensiveto conduct). Most of the studies have had several control groups, controlling for such

factors as distraction, relaxation, and negative emotion. For example, Rosemary

Cogan and her colleagues conducted an experiment in which college students were

randomly assigned to either humor (an audiotape of Lily Tbmlin performing stand-

up comedy), relaxation (a progressive muscle relaxation tape), dull narrative (a lecture

on ethics), or no-treatment control conditions (Cogan, Cogan, Waltz, and McCue,1987). The results showed no difference between the laughter and relaxation groupson pain threshold measures obtained following the manipulation; however, thresholds

for both of these groups were significantly higher than those for the dull narrative

and no-treatment conditions. Thus, exposure to humor and relaxation both producedincreases in the amount of noxious stimulus that participants were able to experiencebefore they began to perceive it as painful, suggesting that humor, like relaxation, mayhave an analgesic effect.

In a second study, these same authors sought to rule out other possible alterna-

tive explanations for these findings by assigning students to either comedy (an audio-

tape of Bill Cosby performing stand-up comedy), interesting narrative (an absorbing

Edgar Allen Poe story), dull narrative (an ethics lecture), active distraction (perform-

ing a multiplication task), or no-treatment conditions. The results revealed that


participants' pain thresholds following these conditions were significantly higher in

the comedy condition than in all the other groups. These results indicate that the

humor-related increase in pain tolerance was not simply due to distraction or absorp-

tion, suggesting a possible physiological mechanism. Similar results have been

obtained in other well-controlled experiments (J. Weaver and Zillmann, 1994;

Weisenberg, Tepper, and Schwarzwald, 1995; Zillmann, Rockwell, Schweitzer, and

Sundar, 1993), providing fairly consistent evidence that exposure to comedy results

in increased pain threshold and tolerance.

There is also some evidence that the analgesic effects of humor observed in the

laboratory may extend to clinical interventions, but perhaps only with moderate rather

than severe levels of pain. In a field study, James Rotton and Mark Shats (1996)

assigned hospitalized orthopedic surgery patients to one of three conditions: (1) a

humorous movie group, who watched four feature-length comedy movies during the

two days post-surgery; (2) a nonhumorous movie group, who watched four dramatic

movies; or (3) a no-movie control group. The results showed lower levels of minor

analgesic (e.g., aspirin) usage during the two days post-surgery in participants watch-

ing the humorous movies as compared to those in the other two groups. However,these effects did not extend to the use of major analgesics such as Demerol and

Percodan. Furthermore, these findings were only obtained among patients in the

humorous movie condition who were permitted to choose which movies they would

watch; those who were not given any choice over the comedy movies they were to

watch actually showed significantly higher levels of analgesic usage compared to the

control groups. Thus, watching humorous films that are not consistent with one's ownhumor preferences may be aversive rather than beneficial.

Although these studies suggest that exposure to humor can reduce pain, it is inter-

esting to note that similar effects are also found with negative emotions. Experimentsthat have included negative emotion control conditions, in addition to comedy con-

ditions, have demonstrated similar increases in pain threshold and tolerance with

exposure to videotapes inducing emotions like disgust, horror, or sadness. For

example, Matisyohyu Weisenberg and colleagues (1995) found equal increases in paintolerance in a group of participants exposed to a comedy film and a group exposed to

a disgusting horror film, both of which showed greater pain tolerance than those in

neutral-film and no-film control conditions. Similar results were found in other

studies comparing the effects of humor to tragedy (Zillmann et al., 1993) and sadness

(J. Weaver and Zillmann, 1994). These findings suggest that the observed analgesiceffects may occur with both positive and negative emotional arousal, rather than being

specific to mirth.

Although these humor-related increases in pain tolerance and threshold appearto be quite robust, the exact mechanisms involved are still not clear. The effects appearto take some time to build up, since they have only been found in studies that tested

pain tolerance after the comedy film ended and not while participants were still

watching the film (Nevo, Keinan, and Teshimovsky-Arditi, 1993). Furthermore,

Weisenberg and colleagues found that the increased pain threshold and tolerance con-

tinued for 30 minutes after exposure to a humorous videotape, even after participants'

HUMOR AND PAIN 32!

self-rated moods had returned to baseline (Weisenberg, Raz, and Hener, 1998). Theauthors interpreted these findings as indicating that humor-related mirth induces

physiological changes that affect the sensory components of pain, rather than simply

altering the cognitive-affective-motivational components of pain, and that these phys-

iological changes take some time to develop and continue even after initial mood

changes have dissipated.

A study by Diana Mahony and her colleagues suggests that humor-related

increases in pain tolerance may be mediated by expectancies (Mahony, Burroughs, and

Hieatt, 2001). In this study, before being shown a humorous videotape, the partici-

pants were told either that humor is known to increase pain tolerance (positive

expectancy condition), or that humor has been shown to decrease pain tolerance (neg-

ative expectancy condition), or they were told nothing about the effects of humor on

pain (no expectancy condition). The positive expectancy and no expectancy groupsboth showed significantly greater increases in pain thresholds following exposure to

the comedy videotape, as compared to the negative expectancy group. These results

suggest that the analgesic effects of humor may be a sort of placebo effect. However,this does not negate the possibility that they are mediated by physiological processes,

since placebo analgesic effects have been shown in other studies to be mediated by

physiological mechanisms including endorphin production in the brain (Benedetti,

2002).

Until recently, none of the humor and pain studies had examined correlations

between the frequency of participants' laughter during the comedy film and changesin their pain tolerance, and it was therefore unclear whether the effects are due to

laughter in particular, to the positive emotion of mirth, or to some other factor such

as the cognitions involved in humor. A recent experiment by Karen Zweyer and her

colleagues was designed to address this question. In this study, participants watched

a comedy film (Mr. Bean at the Dentist} that contained sound effects but no dialogue,

and they were instructed to either (1) enjoy the film but inhibit all smiling and laugh-

ter, (2) smile and laugh as much as possible during the film, or (3) produce a humor-

ous narrative while watching the film (Zweyer, Velker, and Ruch, 2004). Using the

cold pressor procedure, pain tolerance was measured before, immediately after, and

20 minutes after the film. The researchers also videotaped the participants during the

procedure, and subsequently coded their facial expressions for genuine (Duchenne)and forced (non-Duchenne) smiling and laughter, using the Facial Action Coding

System (which was described in Chapter 6).

Overall, the three conditions yielded similar significant increases in pain thresh-

old and tolerance relative to baseline, which were evident immediately after the film

and continued 20 minutes later. These results indicate that neither laughter nor

humor production are necessary, beyond feelings of amusement, for the pain reduc-

tion effect to occur. Moreover, the observed increases in pain tolerance were found

to be positively associated with genuine enjoyment smiles (Duchenne display), but not

with the frequency or intensity of laughter. In fact, voluntary efforts to exhibit or

amplify laughter-related positive emotions were actually negatively associated with

pain tolerance. Although these findings should be replicated before we can draw firm


conclusions, they cast doubt on the hypothesis (derived from the case of Norman

Cousins) that hearty laughter is necessary for the increase in pain tolerance to oc-

cur. Instead, the results suggest that the mechanisms have more to do with the

amusement-related positive emotion of mirth. Laughter does not seem to be neces-

sary and, in fact, forcing oneself to laugh seemed to have a contrary effect (a findingthat may be problematic for the laughter club movement).

In summary, there is quite consistent empirical support for Norman Cousins'

observation that laughter reduces pain, although the evidence suggests that the effect

is not due to laughter per se, but rather to the positive emotion of mirth that accom-

panies humor and that is typically expressed by laughter. The research also indicates

that these analgesic effects occur with negative as well as positive emotions. We still

do not know, however, whether the humor-related increases in pain tolerance are

mediated by endorphins. Indeed, the popular view that humorous mirth is associated

with endorphin production in the brain has not yet been substantiated by research.

In fact, experiments that have assessed levels of beta-endorphin in blood samples have

net found any changes in this variable when participants were exposed to comedyfilms (L. S. Berk et al., 1989; Itami et al., 1994). However, blood tests may not be sen-

sitive to changes in opiate levels occurring in the brain. One potential method for

investigating the endorphin mediation hypothesis would be to determine whether

humor-associated increases in pain tolerance disappear when participants are first

given the opiate antagonist Naloxone. If Naloxone, which blocks endorphin recep-tors in the brain, cancels out the pain-reducing effect of humor, this would indicate

that the effect is mediated by endorphins. This is an interesting question that should

be pursued in future research.

HUMOR, BLOOD PRESSURE, AND HEART DISEASE

Although some authors have speculated that frequent hearty laughter may lead

to a reduction in blood pressure (e.g., McGhee, 1999), experimental studies indicate

that laughter is actually associated with short-term increases in blood pressure and

heart rate, but no longer-term effects. Sabina White and Phame Camarena (1989)

conducted a six-week intervention study to examine the effects of laughter on systolic

blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR). They ran-

domly assigned participants to a laughter treatment group, a relaxation group, or a

health-education control group, each ofwhich met for 6 weekly sessions of lV2 hours.

The results showed no significant presession to postsession changes in DBP, SBP, or

HR in the laughter or health-education groups, whereas the relaxation group showed

significantly lower postsession HR and SBP in comparison with both of the other

groups. Thus, this study did not support the hypothesis that sustained laughter results

in lower levels of heart rate and blood pressure over time.

In a study of the relation between trait sense of humor and blood pressure,Herbert Lefcourt and his colleagues examined correlations between participants'

scores on the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and the Coping

HUMOR AND ILLNESS SYMPTOMS 327

Humor Scale (CHS) and their SBP and DBF levels during a series of stressful labo-

ratory tasks (Lefcourt, Davidson, Prkachin, and Mills, 1997). No significant correla-

tions were found between the sense of humor scales and DBF, but an interesting sex

difference was revealed in the pattern of correlations with SBP. Women with higherscores on the sense of humor measures, as compared to women with lower scores,

were found to have generally lower levels of SBP, supporting the idea that a sense of

humor is negatively related to blood pressure. However, the opposite relation was

found for men: those with higher humor scores had higher overall levels of SBP as

compared to their low-humor male counterparts. The authors suggested that these

findings may be due to differences in the way men and women express humor, with

women perhaps engaging in more tolerant, self-accepting, and adaptive forms of

humor, potentially leading to more beneficial physiological effects (Crawford and

Gressley, 1991). In contrast, greater humor in men may reflect greater competitive-ness and aggressiveness, resulting in more elevated blood pressure. These findings

hint at the possibility that different styles or types of humor may have quite different

health consequences.Adam Clark and his colleagues conducted a study at the University of Maryland

Medical Center to determine whether there is a correlation between coronary heart

disease (CHD) and sense ofhumor (A. Clark, Seidler, and Miller, 2001). They admin-

istered the SHRQ (which, as noted in Chapter 7, assesses the degree to which indi-

viduals frequently laugh and smile in a wide variety of situations) to 300 consecutive

patients diagnosed with CHD, as well as biological family members of these patients.

The results showed that, on average, the CHD patients had significantly lower SHRQscores than did their healthy relatives, suggesting that a lower sense of humor may be

a risk factor for heart disease. Scores on this sense of humor measure were unrelated

to other risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, or cigarette smoking. However,individuals with higher SHRQ scores had significantly lower scores on a measure of

hostility, which has previously been shown to be related to a greater risk of heart

disease (Williams et al., 1980). Although these findings suggest that a sense of humor

may provide some protection against heart disease, a serious weakness of the study is

that the humor test was administered after patients had already developed the disease.

The causal effect may therefore be opposite to what is proposed: people who have

recently had a heart attack may be less inclined to respond to situations with humorand laughter, resulting in lower SHRQ scores. Further research is therefore needed

using prospective designs to determine whether nonsymptomatic people with lower

humor scores are more likely to develop heart disease at a later time.

HUMOR AND ILLNESS SYMPTOMS

If humor and laughter confer beneficial effects on immunity and other aspects of

health, individuals who laugh more frequently and have a better sense ofhumor should

be generally less likely to become ill. To test this hypothesis, several researchers have

examined simple correlations between trait measures of sense of humor, such as the


SHRQ and CHS, and overall health, as measured by self-report physical symptomchecklists. Some of these studies have found the predicted negative correlations

between these variables, indicating that individuals with a greater sense ofhumor tend

to report fewer medical problems and illness symptoms (Boyle and Joss-Reid, 2004;

Carroll and Shmidt, 1992; Dillon and Totten, 1989; P. S. Fry, 1995; Ruch and Kohler,

1999). Other studies, however, have failed to replicate these findings (Anderson and

Arnoult, 1989; Labott and Martin, 1990; Porterfield, 1987).

Additionally, two studies found a significant stress-moderating effect of sense of

humor on self-reported illness symptomatology, indicating that individuals with

higher sense of humor scores were less likely to report becoming ill following highlevels of stressful life events (Abel, 1998; P. S. Fry, 1995). However, these findings

were not replicated in other studies with larger sample sizes (Korotkov and Hannah,

1994; Porterfield, 1987). One study even found an interaction between humor and

stress that was opposite to predictions, with high-humor individuals showing a greater

tendency to report illness following negative life events (Anderson and Arnoult, 1989).

Thus, there is no consistent evidence that people with a greater sense of humor are

less likely to become ill.

It is important to note that self-report measures of illness symptoms are often

confounded with negative emotionality or neuroticism, making them somewhat unre-

liable measures of objective health status (D. Watson and Pennebaker, 1989). Peoplewho generally experience more negative moods, as compared to less neurotic indi-

viduals, tend to perceive themselves as being less healthy, even though they may not

differ in objective health status. Because sense of humor tests tend to be somewhat

negatively related to neuroticism, observed correlations between sense of humor and

self-reported illness symptoms may be due to this shared neuroticism componentrather than any objective health benefits of humor. It is therefore important for

researchers to partial out the effects of neuroticism in such research. This was done

in only one study, and in that study the correlation between sense of humor and phys-ical illness symptoms disappeared after controlling for neuroticism (Korotkov and

Hannah, 1994).

A recent study by Sven Svebak and colleagues represented a unique opportunityto include a measure of sense ofhumor in a large population health study that involved

the entire adult population of a county in Norway (Svebak, Martin, and Holmen,

2004). Besides completing a three-item humor measure derived from Svebak's

(1996) Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ-6), over 65,000 participants completeda survey about their illness symptoms in a variety of domains (e.g., nausea, diarrhea,

pounding heart, dyspnea, musculoskeletal pain) and their overall health satisfaction,

and were also assessed for blood pressure, height, and weight (allowing for computa-tion of body mass index, a measure of obesity). As such, this is the largest correla-

tional study of sense of humor and health ever conducted. However, the results

provided very little evidence for a direct association between sense of humor and

health. After controlling for age, no meaningful correlations were found between

sense of humor and either illness symptoms or objective health indicators, althoughthe study did find a weak relation between sense ofhumor and satisfaction with health.

HUMOR AND LONGEVITY 329

These results suggest that, although high-humor individuals do not seem to have

objectively better health, they are somewhat more subjectively satisfied with their

health.

In view of the very large sample size of this survey, the broad age range of par-

ticipants, and the unselected nature of the sample, these data provide quite convinc-

ing evidence that people with a greater sense of humor (at least as defined by highscores on such self-report tests as the SHQ) are no more healthy overall than are their

low-humor counterparts. If a sense ofhumor does confer any health benefits, it would

appear that either they are too subtle to be captured by such a cross-sectional design,

or the type of humor involved is not adequately captured by the SHQ. For example,this study did not include a measure of life stress, so the authors were unable to

examine the possibility of a stress-moderating effect of sense of humor on health. In

addition, the possibility remains that effects of humor on health might emerge over

time in a longitudinal design.

A study by Nicholas Kuiper and Sorrel Nicholl (2004) also bears on the relation

between sense of humor and satisfaction with health. These authors suggested that it

may be important to distinguish between actual and perceived physical health, and

proposed that a sense of humor may contribute to more positive perceptions of

physical health than may actually be warranted. Using a sample of undergraduate stu-

dents, they found that individuals with higher scores on sense of humor measures

reported more positive health-related perceptions, such as less fear of serious disease

or death, less negative bodily preoccupation, and less concern about pain. These

results are consistent with the finding of Svebak et al. (2004) that higher sense of

humor is related to greater subjective satisfaction with health but not with more objec-

tive indicators of health status. These findings may help to explain the popularity of

the idea that humor is beneficial for one's health. People with a greater sense ofhumor

may perceive themselves to be healthier, showing less concern and preoccupation with

symptoms of illness, even though they are not objectively healthier. Thus, althoughthe direction of causality is unclear in correlational research such as this, it may be

that humor contributes to one's quality of life without making one physically

healthier.

HUMOR AND LONGEVITY

If humor has beneficial effects on physical health, then it should be possible to

demonstrate that, on average, people who more frequently engage in humor and

laughter tend to live longer than their less humorous counterparts. Indeed, this would

seem to be the most important test of the humor-health hypothesis. Although one

could still argue that frequently engaging in humor and laughter can at least improvethe quality if not the duration of life, it is difficult to see how claims for actual

physical health benefits of humor can be sustained if it does not prolong life.

Unfortunately, the research evidence in this regard, although limited, is not very

encouraging.


James Rotton (1992), in a series of four separate studies, found no differences in

the life duration of comedians and comedy writers, as compared with that of serious

entertainers and authors. Interestingly, though, he found that both professional

humorists and serious entertainers died at a significantly younger age than did peoplewho were famous for other reasons, perhaps due to the stresses or unhealthy lifestyles

of people in the entertainment industry. Thus, the ability to create humor and to make

other people laugh (as epitomized in individuals who make a living by their comedic

abilities) does not appear to confer any health benefits resulting in greater longevity.

Another study suggests that having a sense of humor may actually cause peopleto die at an earlier age than they would otherwise. Howard Friedman and his col-

leagues conducted analyses of data from 1178 male and female participants from the

well-known Terman Life-Cycle Study, a longitudinal investigation that followed a

cohort of intellectually gifted individuals for many decades beginning when they were

children in the 1920s (Friedman, Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey, Schwartz, et al., 1993).

A composite measure of cheerfulness was derived from parent and teacher ratings of

sense of humor and optimism that had been obtained on these individuals at the ageof 12. Surprisingly, survival analyses revealed that those individuals who were rated

as having higher cheerfulness at age 12 had significantly higher mortality rates

throughout the ensuing decades. Thus, on average, more cheerful individuals were

more likely to die at a younger age as compared to their less cheerful counterparts.

The higher mortality rates were found in both men and women, and applied to all

causes of death.

The authors suggested that these surprising results may be due to more cheerful

individuals being less concerned about health risks and taking less care of themselves,

as compared to more serious people. Ironically, the greater health satisfaction and

lowered concern about health problems found in high-humor individuals (Kuiper and

Nicholl, 2004; Svebak, Martin et al., 2004) may lead to a more blase attitude toward

health risks and consequently higher mortality rates.

Proponents of the health benefits of humor have sought to dismiss the findings

of this study in a number of ways, suggesting, for example, that the definition of sense

of humor was inappropriate, or that the results were due to the optimism compo-nent of the composite cheerfulness measure rather than the sense of humor compo-nent, or that cheerfulness in this study reflected a lack of emotional adjustment.

However, these arguments do not appear to stand up under closer scrutiny. The ques-tion that was used for rating sense of humor in this study had at its positive pole the

following description: "Extraordinarily keen sense ofhumor. Witty. Appreciates jokes.

Sees the funny side of everything," and at its negative pole the following: "Extremely

lacking in sense of humor. Serious and prosy. Never sees the funny side." It seems

difficult to argue that this description is very different from the way most people today

(including advocates of the "humor and health" movement) would describe a sense of

humor.

Moreover, a follow-up analysis of these data found that the higher mortality rates

remained even when the sense of humor rating was used by itself, and not just in com-

bination with optimism (L. R. Martin et al., 2002). These analyses also found that

CONCLUSION 331

individuals who were rated higher on cheerfulness as children were no more likely to

be neurotic or to have emotional problems later in life and, indeed, they were better

adjusted and more carefree in adulthood, as well as being more extraverted. On the

other hand, the analyses showed that children who were rated as more cheerful in

childhood went on to smoke more cigarettes, consume more alcohol, and engage in

more risky hobbies as adults, although these unhealthy lifestyle behaviors did not com-

pletely account statistically for their higher mortality rates. Overall, then, rather than

supporting the hypothesis that a sense of humor increases longevity, the existing evi-

dence, though limited, suggests that a sense of humor may actually be an illness risk

factor.

CONCLUSION

Of all the health benefits claimed for humor and laughter, the most consistent

research support has been found for the hypothesized analgesic effects. After watch-

ing humorous films in the laboratory, individuals tend to be able to tolerate increased

levels of pain, and there is some limited clinical evidence that humor can reduce post-

surgical pain. The research suggests that the observed pain-reducing effects are likely

due to amusement-related positive emotion, rather than to laughter per se, althoughsimilar effects are also found with negative emotions. The popular idea that these

effects are mediated by the production of endorphins or other opiates in the brain has

not yet been investigated, although this appears to be a plausible explanation. Moreextensive research is needed to explore these mechanisms and to determine whether

these effects are strong enough to be useful for applications of humor in the treat-

ment of pain resulting from clinical conditions.

With regard to possible effects of humor and laughter on immunity, the research

to date is not as consistent or conclusive. Some short-term effects of exposure to

comedy on some components of immunity have been observed in the laboratory, and

recent findings of reduced allergic reactions are intriguing. However, these studies

tend to be quite small, with many methodological limitations, and some of the find-

ings have been inconsistent across studies. More systematic and rigorous research is

needed to replicate these findings and explore possible mechanisms before firm con-

clusions can be drawn. Research in the general field of psychoneuroimmunology indi-

cates that emotional states can influence immunity through the many communication

channels linking the brain and the immune system. There is therefore reason to expectinteractions between the emotion of mirth and immunity as well. However, these

complex interactions are still not well understood, and there does not appear to be a

simple one-to-one relation between specific emotions and particular changes in

immunity (Booth and Pennebaker, 2000).

Although the research offers some interesting suggestions of possible effects of

humor on immunity, there is little evidence that people who have a better sense of

humor and laugh more frequently have better immunity, enjoy better health overall,

or live longer lives. There is even some research suggesting that more humorous and


cheerful people may actually die at an earlier age than their more serious counter-

parts. This may be due to high-humor individuals having less concern about health

issues, a more risky lifestyle, or a reduced tendency to take health problems seriously

and seek appropriate medical treatment when needed.

Nonetheless, even though more humorous and cheerful people may not live

longer, they may enjoy a better quality of life and greater overall life satisfaction. It

also remains possible that different types of humor may affect different aspects of

health in different ways. Although a cheerful sense of humor might contribute to

earlier mortality by causing people to take less care of themselves overall, it remains

possible that mirth could produce biochemical changes having some health benefits,

or that the use of certain styles of humor could facilitate coping with stress or enhance

intimate relationships, indirectly producing some positive health effects.

Those who advocate humor and laughter as a pathway to better health seem to

have moved too quickly to promote their views on the basis of rather flimsy research

evidence. Besides the need for more basic research in this area, the effectiveness of

humor-based interventions needs to be carefully evaluated before they are widely

implemented. For some proponents, this health fad may be seen as an opportunityfor making money through promotional books and workshops, but many others

appear to be motivated by genuine concern about helping others. In either case, a

strong commitment to belief in health benefits of humor and laughter can make it

difficult for advocates to evaluate the research objectively.

One could perhaps argue in defense of proponents of the "humor and health"

movement that, although humor may not produce all the health benefits that have

been claimed, at least it is not likely to be harmful and it can enhance people's enjoy-ment if not the duration of their lives. There is certainly some merit to this line of

argument. There is undoubtedly nothing wrong with encouraging people to enjoyhumor and to laugh more often, especially if they are suffering from a serious illness

that would otherwise reduce their enjoyment of life. However, there is a risk that

unfounded claims of health benefits of humor and laughter may raise false hopes in

sick individuals.

There is also a danger that an emphasis on the health benefits of humor and

laughter could lead to an unjustified perception that people have more control over

their health than they actually do, fostering a subtle tendency to blame people for

their illnesses. Consequently, those who become ill may begin to feel guilty because

they supposedly did not laugh enough. In addition, exaggerated claims about

unfounded health benefits of humor and laughter can contribute to perceptions that

this is nothing more than a fringe movement and a passing fad, which could dissuade

researchers and funding agencies from conducting and funding well-designed large-

scale experiments in this field, thereby delaying progress in identifying those health

effects that may be genuine.Theories about possible health benefits of humor need to be based on plausible

biological mechanisms. From an evolutionary perspective, it seems unlikely that the

primary function of humor and laughter is to improve people's physical health.

As noted in Chapter 6, comparative research suggests that the positive emotion

CONCLUSION 333

associated with humor is related to social play, and that laughter is an expressive behav-

ior communicating playful emotions and intentions to others. In Chapter 5, 1 also dis-

cussed in some detail the many social functions of humor and laughter. Thus, the

origins of humor and laughter seem to have more to do with social interaction and

the social nature ofhuman existence than with physical health. Nonetheless, it remains

possible that these emotions and behaviors may have some physiological and psycho-

logical concomitants that could indirectly affect aspects of health.

The interactions between emotions and immunity that have been found byresearchers likely have to do with the fact that both are involved in constructing and

maintaining relationships between the individual and his or her environment (Boothand Pennebaker, 2000). Emotional feelings of distress and well-being are signals con-

cerning the state of the organism, providing useful information for the immune

system, which is also concerned with individual integrity and well-being. Hence, feel-

ings of cheerfulness and a playful, humorous perspective may be in part a signal that

one's physiological resources are adequate for dealing with threats to well-being, as

well as perhaps contributing to the mobilization of those resources (Leventhal and

Patrick-Miller, 2000). Thus, there are some theoretical grounds for proposing possi-

ble effects of humor on some health-related variables, even though these effects maynot be the primary function of humor from an evolutionary perspective.

Despite the limitations of the existing research evidence, more systematic inves-

tigation in this area appears to be warranted by the suggestive research findings, as

well as the theoretical plausibility of some sort of humor-health connections. As dis-

cussed earlier, future experimental research should include appropriate control con-

ditions to rule out alternative explanations for findings, as well as examining the role

of laughter and mirth in mediating any observed effects. Animal research may also be

helpful in clarifying neural and biochemical mechanisms involved in physiological

effects of play-related emotions (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003).

Future research should also examine the different theoretical models linking

humor and health that I discussed earlier in this chapter. Most of the existing research

has focused on hypothesized direct effects of laughter and mirthful emotion on phys-

iological variables such as immunity. Little research has been conducted on possible

indirect effects, such as potential health benefits of enhanced interpersonal relation-

ships and more effective coping with stress resulting from a healthy sense of humor.

Here, as suggested in the Chapter 1 1,it would seem to be important to distinguish

between different types or styles of humor, some of which may be beneficial to health

while others may even have adverse effects. In the end, it may be that, as with psy-

chological health, the absence of certain deleterious types of humor (e.g., hostile

humor) may be as important (or perhaps even more important) for physical health as

the presence of other more benign forms of humor.

CHAPTER 11

Applications of Humor in

Psychotherapy, Education, and

the Workplace

O"ver the past two decades, there has been

a growing interest in potential applications of humor in a variety of professional

domains. In Chapter 10, 1 discussed possible benefits ofhumor and laughter for phys-ical health, as well as the use of various humor-based interventions by health care

providers. In this chapter, I will explore potential benefits (and also possible risks) of

humor applied to the fields of psychotherapy and counseling, education, and the

workplace.A number of individuals working in each of these areas have enthusiastically pro-

moted the use of humor-related techniques and interventions in their respective dis-

ciplines, and numerous articles in professional and trade journals, books, and Internet

websites have appeared on this topic. Among its membership, the Association for

Applied and Therapeutic Humor (AATH) includes psychotherapists, marriage and

family counselors, teachers, and consultants to business and industry, along with

physicians, nurses, and other health care practitioners, all of whom are interested in

the way humor and laughter may be applied to their respective fields.

Most of the claims that have been made about potential benefits ofhumor in these

different areas are based on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, althoughhumor advocates also frequently cite various research findings to bolster their argu-

ments. Although the empirical research in each of these areas is quite limited, in

the following sections I will explore the relevant findings, attempting to weigh the

335

APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR

evidence for various claims, as well as pointing out those questions that still require

further study.

The topics of this chapter bring us to the applied areas of psychology, particularly

clinical and counseling, educational, and industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology.

Each of these branches of psychology represents a combination of professional prac-

tice and science. As practitioners, psychologists working in these fields seek to applyrelevant findings and principles derived from the more basic research areas of the dis-

cipline to solve real-world problems relating to individual emotional and behavioral

disturbance, teaching and education, and the world of business and industry, respec-

tively. As scientists, they conduct empirical research to examine the effectiveness of

their interventions and to answer important theoretical and practical questions relat-

ing to their fields.

As a consequence of this scientific orientation, applied psychologists tend to be

rather skeptical about unsubstantiated claims regarding novel treatment interventions,

teaching methods, or business practices, emphasizing instead the importance of apply-

ing empirical methods to investigate the validity of these sorts of practices. Thus,while maintaining an open mind about possible benefits of humor-related applications

in these areas, a psychological perspective requires that we carefully sift through the

evidence and avoid being carried away by unfounded enthusiasm.

HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING

Based on the idea that humor has important benefits for mental health (as dis-

cussed in Chapter 9), therapists from a variety of different theoretical perspectives are

showing a growing interest in the potential role ofhumor in psychotherapy and coun-

seling. A number ofjournal articles and books have been written on this topic in recent

years (Buckman, 1994; Franzini, 2000, 2001; W. F. Fry and Salameh, 1987, 1993;

Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996; Haig, 1988; Kuhlman, 1984; Lemma, 1999; Rutherford,

1994; Saper, 1987; Strean, 1994). Humor-based interventions have been advocated in

the treatment of a wide variety of psychological problems ranging from depression

(Richman, 2003), stress-related disorders (Prerost, 1988), obsessive-compulsive dis-

orders (Surkis, 1993), and phobias (Ventis, Higbee, and Murdock, 2001), to antiso-

cial personality disorder (Martens, 2004), schizophrenia (Witztum, Briskin, and

Lerner, 1999), and mental retardation (Davidson and Brown, 1989).

Humor has been recommended as a useful tool in individual therapy and coun-

seling (Rutherford, 1994), group therapy (Bloch, 1987; Bloch, Browning, and

McGrath, 1983), family and marital counseling (Odell, 1996), and in the treatment

of children and adolescents (Bernet, 1993) and the elderly (Prerost, 1993; Richman,

1995). The therapeutic benefits of humor have been lauded by therapists from manydifferent theoretical schools, including Adlerian (Rutherford, 1994), behavioral

(Franzini, 2000; Ventis et al., 2001), cognitive (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996), psycho-

analytic (Bergmann, 1999; Korb, 1988), rational-emotive (Borcherdt, 2002), and

strategic family therapy (Madanes, 1987).

HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 337

Clinical psychologist Louis Franzini (2001) defined therapeutic humor as "the

intentional and spontaneous use of humor techniques by therapists and other health

care professionals, which can lead to improvements in the self-understanding and

behavior of clients or patients" (p. 171). He suggested that therapeutic humor can

take almost any form, including formal jokes or riddles (although these would be rel-

atively rare), spontaneous puns or spoonerisms, behavioral or verbal parapraxes (i.e.,

unintentional humorous "Freudian slips"), humorous comments pointing out absurd-

ities or illogical reasoning, exaggerations to the extreme, humorous self-deprecations

on the part of the therapist, illustrations of universal human frailties, and comical

observations of current social events. In order for humor to be beneficial in therapy,

according to Franzini, the point of the humor should be clearly relevant to a current

therapeutic issue, such as an inner conflict or a personal characteristic of the client.

The immediate consequence of such therapeutic uses of humor is typically a positive

emotional experience shared by the therapist and the client, ranging in intensity from

quiet empathic amusement to loud laughter.

There are three general ways of thinking about potential applications of humorto therapy. First, some authors have advocated a sort of "humor as therapy" approach,

attempting to develop a whole system of therapy that is based largely on humor.

Second, humor could be the basis of specific therapeutic techniques that clinicians mighthave in their repertoire (along with a number of other, non-humor-based interven-

tions) and which they could apply to the treatment of particular types of client prob-lems. Third, humor may be viewed as a communication skill that, like other therapist

characteristics such as empathy and genuineness, contributes to a therapist's overall

effectiveness regardless of his or her theoretical orientation.

In the following sections, I will explore each of these approaches in turn, exam-

ining research evidence where it exists, followed by a discussion of potential risks in

the use of humor in psychotherapy and counseling. Although my focus here is on psy-

chotherapy and counseling, much of this discussion is also relevant to the use ofhumorin other helping and health care professions such as social work, medicine, nursing,

physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and so on (cf. du Pre, 1998; Leber and Vanoli,

2001).

Humor-Based Therapies

A large number of different "schools" of psychotherapy were developed and pro-moted by various clinicians during the 1960s and 1970s. A few of these approaches

emphasized the importance of fostering a healthy sense of humor as one of the main

goals of therapy. According to these approaches, a humorous perspective on life is not

only an important indicator of psychological health, but also a means to maintain and

strengthen healthy functioning. Some of these approaches employed specific humor-

based techniques to induce change in clients, while others emphasized the role of the

therapist in modeling a humorous outlook and encouraging any humor that emerges

naturally as the client gains a more realistic outlook and a greater ability to copewith life.


One well-known approach to therapy that makes extensive use of humor is

Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET), which was developed by Albert Ellis (e.g., Ellis

and Grieger, 1986). According to this approach, people develop psychological distur-

bance as a consequence of having irrational beliefs, dysfunctional attitudes, and unre-

alistic absolute standards. The aim of therapy is therefore to challenge and dispute

clients' false beliefs and to replace them with more realistic and adaptive assumptionsand attitudes. One way of doing this is for the therapist to use humorous exaggera-

tion and even sarcasm to point out the absurdity of clients' irrational belief systems.

Ellis (1977) wrote that "human disturbance largely consists of exaggerating the

significance or the seriousness of things, and the ripping up of such exaggerations

by humorous counter-exaggeration may well prove one of the main methods of

therapeutic attack" (p. 4).

Besides being a way of disputing the irrational assumptions of clients, Ellis sug-

gested that humor is beneficial in therapy because it brings enjoyment and mirth,

makes life seem more worthwhile, and provides alternative ways of dealing with prob-lems. Although Ellis's use of humor appears to be quite aggressive, he emphasizedthat it must be done in a way that communicates acceptance of clients and encour-

ages them to accept themselves despite their errors and human fallibilities. Nonethe-

less, many clinicians are uncomfortable with such a confrontational style of humor in

therapy. Most would agree that, due to its potential for harm, such humor must be

employed very cautiously and skillfully, if at all.

Another therapeutic approach that employs humor to actively confront and

challenge clients is Provocative Therapy, which was developed by Frank Farrelly and

his colleagues (Farrelly and Brandsma, 1974; Farrelly and Lynch, 1987). Originally

devised for the treatment of chronic schizophrenia, this approach was subsequently

promoted as being beneficial for many types of psychological problems. Based on the

assumption that clients can change their self-defeating behavior patterns and over-

come psychological disturbance if they take responsibility for their own behavior, the

goal of this therapy is to provoke an emotional response in clients that results in

changes in their perceptions and actions. This is done by using humor to attack their

beliefs, feelings, and behaviors through exaggeration and sarcasm, causing them to

fight back against the therapist and eventually gain a detached, humorous perspective

on their dysfunctional behavior patterns.

Although this therapeutic approach, like RET, appears to be very aggressive and

even hostile, Farrelly and Lynch (1987) emphasized that the client must experiencethe therapist as "warmly caring and fundamentally supportive" (p. 90). Similarly,

Farrelly and Brandsma (1974) stressed that "if the client is not laughing during at least

part of the therapeutic encounter, the therapist is not doing provocative therapy and

what he is doing may at times turn out to be destructive" (p. 95). Like Ellis's approach,

provocative therapy appears to have a potential for harm if used by an unskilled

therapist.

A less confrontational therapeutic system giving an important place to humor is

Walter O'ConnelPs (1981; 1987) Natural High Therapy, a humanistic approach that

borrows heavily from the ideas of Carl Jung and Alfred Adler. According to this

HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 33?

approach, psychological symptoms are manifestations of displaced creative energiesand personality constrictions resulting from frustrating life experiences. The goal of

therapy is to increase self-actualization, helping the client to move from the con-

strictions of being controlled by the environment and inner compulsions to a healthysense of autonomy based on self-esteem and satisfying relationships with others. Ahealthy sense of humor is seen as a defining characteristic of self-actualization.

Using a didactic-experiential format and combining individual and group treat-

ment modalities, Natural High Therapy employs a variety of techniques to promoteself-actualization, including psychodrama, role playing, guided imagery, and medita-

tion. Humor, which O'Connell (1981, p. 561) viewed as "the royal road toward self-

actualization," is an intrinsic part of all of these methods. However, for O'Connell,

humor was more an end than a means. Rather than forcing it onto clients, the ther-

apist's role is one of modeling a humorous outlook and encouraging any humor that

emerges spontaneously in the client.

Other clinicians who have promoted humor as an essential component of psy-

chotherapy include Harvey Mindess (1971, 1976), Martin Grotjahn (1966, 1971), and

Waleed Salameh (1987). Unfortunately, like many of the schools of therapy that arose

in past decades, little research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of

most of these humor-based therapy systems or to compare them with other types of

treatment.

Humor as a Specific Therapeutic Technique

Rather than creating a whole system of therapy with humor as a central ingre-

dient, some clinicians have developed specific humor-based intervention techniquesfor treating particular clients with particular problems. For example, Larry Ventis, a

clinical psychologist at the College of William and Mary, developed an application of

humor in systematic desensitization for the treatment of phobias and other fear-

related conditions. Systematic desensitization is a behavioral intervention in which

clients vividly imagine themselves experiencing a series of progressively more threat-

ening fear-evoking situations while engaging in muscle relaxation exercises. The

repeated pairing of a relaxation response with exposure to a feared stimulus gradually

diminishes the feelings of anxiety evoked by the stimulus, enabling the individual to

overcome the phobic aversion.

In an early case study, Ventis (1973) described the successful use of humorous

imagery instead of muscle relaxation during a session of systematic desensitization in

the treatment of a young woman who suffered from social anxiety. In another case

study published around the same time, Ronald Smith (1973) reported that the use of

humor in nine sessions of systematic desensitization was highly effective in reducing

strong, maladaptive anger responses in a 2 2 -year-old woman, after previous attemptsat treatment using standard muscle relaxation procedures had failed.

More recently, Ventis and his colleagues (2001) conducted a more carefully con-

trolled clinical study to investigate the use of humor in systematic desensitization in

the treatment of spider phobias. Forty undergraduate students with spider phobias


were randomly assigned to either four individual weekly treatment sessions using

traditional systematic desensitization with muscle relaxation, four sessions of desen-

sitization using humor, or a no-treatment control condition. In the humor treatment

condition, participants were given humor creation exercises and weekly homework

assignments in which they were encouraged to generate humorous statements and

images relating to spiders. In each therapy session, they were also taken through a

hierarchy of mental imagery scenarios in which humorous images were paired with

anxiety-evoking situations having to do with exposure to spiders.

The results revealed that participants in both the humor desensitization groupand the standard muscle relaxation group showed significant and equally large reduc-

tions in their fear of spiders on self-report and behavioral outcome measures, whereas

those in the no-treatment group did not show any significant improvement. Further

analyses revealed that the reduction of spider phobia in the two treatment groups was

mediated by increased feelings of self-efficacy. The authors suggested that the expe-rience of humor-related positive emotion may have altered the cognitive appraisals of

participants in the humor treatment group, providing them with an increased sense

of self-efficacy and a greater willingness to approach and interact with spiders. Overall,

this study provided evidence that a humor-based intervention may be just as effective

as (but not necessarily more effective than) standard muscle relaxation in systematic

desensitization for the treatment of phobias.

Another well-known therapeutic technique that has often been viewed as beingbased on humor is "paradoxical intention," which was developed by Viktor Frankl

(1960) and has been used for treating various problems including obsessive-

compulsive symptoms, anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. In this technique, clients

are encouraged to try to increase the frequency and exaggerate the severity of their

symptoms. It is assumed that these paradoxical efforts put the clients into a sort of

"double bind" that can only be resolved by recognizing the absurdity of their symp-toms, enabling them to develop the ability to laugh at their neurotic behavior pat-

terns and gain a feeling of detachment from them. It might therefore seem reasonable

to expect that clients with a greater sense of humor would derive more benefit from

this type of treatment.

However, contrary to this hypothesis, a study by Geraldine Newton and ThomasDowd (1990) found that the use of paradoxical interventions in the treatment of

students with test anxiety was much more effective with clients having low (rather

than high) scores on measures of sense of humor. The authors suggested that the

high-humor participants may have treated the paradoxical intervention as merely a

joke that was not to be taken seriously, and were therefore unable to experience the

therapeutic "double bind" that is required for the intervention to be effective. In con-

trast, low-humor participants may have taken the intervention more seriously and

attempted to cooperate with the therapist, resulting in the paradoxical effectiveness

of the treatment. These findings suggest that, although paradoxical interventions maywork by stimulating a humorous perspective toward one's neurotic symptoms, theyneed to be initially taken seriously to be effective. Individuals who normally approachlife with a humorous outlook may be less likely to benefit from them.


Eliezer Witztum and his colleagues (1999) described the use of paradoxical inter-

ventions and other humor-based techniques to treat delusions and hallucinations in

12 patients with chronic schizophrenia who had been hospitalized for at least eight

years. After three months of more serious "persuasion therapy" failed to produce any

therapeutic improvement in the patients, the therapists began using a humorous

approach in individual and group therapy sessions. This involved making joking com-ments in a sympathetic and lighthearted manner to satirize and trivialize the patients'

delusions and hallucinations, highlighting the irony and absurdity of these symptoms

through playful exaggeration, and thereby encouraging the patients not to take them

overly seriously. At the end of three months of this humor treatment, evaluations of

the patients' mental state using a psychiatric rating scale revealed significant

improvements in functioning in most of the patients, and these gains were found to

be maintained in a three-month follow-up assessment. Although further research is

needed, this small study provided promising evidence of the potential benefits of

humor-based techniques in treating chronic psychotic symptoms.

Humor as a Therapist Skill

A third approach to the role of humor in therapy is to view it as a type of social

skill or interpersonal competence that contributes to therapists' overall effectiveness,

regardless of their theoretical orientation or the specific techniques they employ (e.g.,

Franzini, 2001; Saper, 1987). In other words, it may be important for psychothera-

pists to have a "good sense of humor." As we have seen throughout this book, humor

may be viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can serve a wide variety

of social functions, ranging from prosocial to aggressive. Psychotherapy is an inter-

personal process, in which the relationship between the therapist and the client is

arguably the main vehicle for therapeutic change (Teyber, 1988). As in most types of

interpersonal relationships, humor and laughter occur quite frequently in the inter-

actions between therapists and their clients.

One recent study of individual psychotherapy sessions found that laughter in

either the client or therapist occurred on average every three minutes, with clients

laughing more than twice as often as therapists (Marci et al., 2004). The ability to use

humor effectively with clients may be viewed as a therapeutic skill that clinicians need

to practice and refine, just as they need to develop a number of other communication

skills such as empathic understanding, active listening, nonverbal communication, and

so forth. In this view, then, humor is something that occurs spontaneously and natu-

rally in the normal interactions between therapist and client, which may be used with

varying degrees of skill and may be more or less beneficial to the client, rather than

being a specific technique that is intentionally employed by the therapist. Humor in

itself is not inherently therapeutic; to be effective, it must be used in a therapeutic

manner.

A good deal of therapy outcome research indicates that the most effective thera-

pists are those who convey an attitude of empathy, caring, and genuineness toward

their clients (Bachelor and Horvath, 1999). Humor is therefore most likely to be


therapeutic if it is used in a genuine manner, communicating empathic understand-

ing and concern for the client. On the other hand, humor may be nontherapeutic,

and even harmful, if it leaves clients feeling misunderstood, if it conveys a sense of

dismissing or denigrating their feelings and perceptions, or if it is used by therapists

to mask their own feelings of discomfort with the issues raised by their clients.

Rather than engaging in humor unthinkingly simply because it is enjoyable, ther-

apists need to be cognizant of the functions being served by their own use of humor

and that of their clients at each stage of therapy, and evaluate its likely therapeutic

effects. In view of the important role of humor in social interaction generally, and the

potential benefits and risks of humor in psychotherapy, Franzini (2001) has arguedthat the topic of humor should be a formal component of the curriculum in the train-

ing of all psychotherapists and counselors.

Although specific techniques vary across different approaches, most types of

therapy share several common goals. These include: (1) establishing positive rapportwith the client; (2) gaining an accurate understanding of the client's thoughts, feel-

ings, and behavior patterns; (3) helping clients to gain insight into their difficulties,

recognize unrealistic aspects of their thinking, and develop alternative perspectives

and new ways of thinking; (4) reducing levels of emotional distress and increasing feel-

ings of well-being; and (5) modifying dysfunctional behavior patterns. A number of

authors have suggested that, when used in a sensitive and empathic manner, humor

might be useful to further each of these therapeutic goals (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996;

Kuhlman, 1984; Pierce, 1994; Saper, 1987).

With regard to establishing rapport, it has been suggested that humor may be used

to put the client at ease and reduce tension, to make the therapist seem more human,to increase the attractiveness of the therapist to the client, and to create a transitional

"play space" in which the therapist and client can engage in rewarding interchangeand shared reality (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996). Laughing together may promote feel-

ings of intimacy and friendliness and facilitate the client's trust in the therapist. A well-

timed humorous comment on the part of the therapist can often be a way of conveying

empathic understanding by succinctly encapsulating ironic aspects of a client's expe-

rience, evoking a chuckle of recognition from the client. By using mildly self-

deprecating humor or taking a humorous perspective on a potentially embarrassingor threatening situation that arises in the course of therapy, the therapist can also serve

as a role model for the appropriate use of humor. For example, if a client criticizes or

complains to the therapist, a humorous rather than a defensive response from the

therapist can communicate that he or she remains hopeful and is not overwhelmed

by the client's criticism and problems (H. A. Olson, 1994).

Humor may also be a vehicle for helping the therapist to gain an accurate under-

standing of the client by paying close attention to the client's humor productions.Research indicates that clients in psychotherapy are much more likely to initiate

humor than are therapists, and that both clients and therapists are more likely to laughin response to humorous comments made by the client than to therapist-initiated

humor (Marci et al., 2004). This client-generated humor may be a rich source of infor-

mation about the client's perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and feelings. Clients'


humor may be used diagnostically as an indicator of their mental status and level of

functioning, as well as a way of assessing progress in therapy and the effectiveness of

particular interventions. For example, the presence or absence of humor may indicate

the degree to which a client is feeling some control over his or her problems or is

feeling overwhelmed. Clients' humor may also signal areas of conflict when the client

laughs spontaneously at things that do not at first appear to be amusing, or may indi-

cate issues of aggression or depression. Therapists should also be alert to the possi-

bility of countertransference feelings when they find themselves using humor

excessively or avoiding it altogether with particular clients (Gelkopf and Kreitler,

1996).

Since humor inherently involves the simultaneous perception of incongruous or

seemingly incompatible ideas or perspectives (i.e., bisociation), it also often occurs in

therapy in the context of helping the client to gain insight and alternative perspectives.

As clients begin to overcome rigid defenses, become more aware of unconscious

assumptions and attitudes, and gain new perspectives on their life situation, they often

experience an "aha" experience that strikes them as humorous and produces sponta-neous laughter. When therapists join into this laughter, they celebrate these new

insights with their clients and further reinforce their new perspectives. In addition,

therapists can also often nudge clients toward these types of insights by gently usinghumor to highlight the irrationality or absurdity of their assumptions and attitudes.

Such humor on the part of the therapist may also help clients to gain a sense of pro-

portion, recognizing that their problems are not as large as they seem. Appropriateuses of humor by the therapist can also help clients to take a more tolerant view of

life, accepting their own imperfections as well as the limitations and uncertainties of

the world around them (Ellis, 1977).

Humor may also be helpful in therapy as a means of reducing emotional distress. As

noted in Chapter 9, a considerable amount of research indicates that humor functions

as an emotion regulation mechanism, reducing negative emotions such as depression,

anxiety, and hostility, and increasing positive moods. By modeling and encouraging a

humorous outlook, therapists can help clients to regulate their emotions.

Laughter may also play a role in helping clients to modify dysfunctional behavior

patterns. Shared laughter can be a form of positive reinforcement following desirable

behavior change, such as when a therapist and client laugh together following the

client's successful enactment of a new way of dealing assertively with a problematic

interpersonal situation. In helping clients to develop assertiveness and to find more

adaptive ways of coping with interpersonal problems, therapists can also teach them

methods of using humor as an effective social skill. In sum, humor seems to be an

important therapist communication skill which, when used judiciously, can help to

work toward the goals of therapy.

Research on Humor in the Therapeutic Process

Empirical investigations of the effects of humor as a therapist communication

skill are unfortunately quite limited, and the overall findings have not been very


promising. One approach to this type of research has been to ask participants to rate

their perceptions of simulated therapy sessions containing humorous and nonhumor-

ous interventions. In one study, adults who were currently in outpatient psychother-

apy were presented with a series of audio recordings of therapy sessions in which the

therapists either did or did not use humor in their responses to their clients (Rosen-

heim and Golan, 1986). The participants were asked to rate how helpful and under-

standing each therapist appeared to be and the degree to which they themselves would

be willing to be treated by the therapist. Contrary to predictions, the results revealed

that the nonhumorous interventions, as compared to the humorous ones, were rated

as being significantly more effective and were more strongly preferred by the therapyclients.

Similar findings were reported in another study using the same methodology in

which the participants were schizophrenic patients in the early stages of remission

from an acute psychotic episode (Rosenheim, Tecucianu, and Dimitrovsky, 1989).

Once again, the results revealed a consistent preference for the nonhumorous over

the humorous interventions among all patients, regardless of age, gender, education,

and diagnosis (paranoid versus nonparanoid). In particular, patients rated the nonhu-

morous interactions as being more helpful, more likely to strengthen the therapeutic

relationship, and displaying more empathy and understanding. These findings suggestthat humorous interventions run the risk of not being well received by clients, and

underscore the need for care in their use.

In another study, university students were asked to rate one of three videotapesof simulated counseling sessions containing no humor, facilitative (empathic and sup-

portive) humor, or nonfacilitative (mildly derisive or distracting) humor initiated bythe counselor (J. A. Foster and Reid, 1983). The results indicated that the counselor

was rated as more approachable and better able to create a positive relationship in

both the facilitative humor and no-humor conditions as compared to the nonfacilita-

tive humor condition, but no differences were found between the facilitative humorand no-humor conditions. Moreover, no differences were found across all three

groups in ratings of the counselor's ability to help the client achieve greater self-

understanding. Overall, this study suggested that nonfacilitative humor might have

an adverse effect on some aspects of treatment, but facilitative humor does not seem

to show any greater therapeutic benefits compared to no humor at all.

Other studies have analyzed tape recordings of actual therapy sessions to examine

the effects of humorous therapist interventions on the ongoing therapy process. Clin-

ical psychologist Barbara Killinger (1987) studied tape recordings of 85 therapy ses-

sions involving different clients and therapists in two different university counselingcenters. Interestingly, no differences were found in the overall frequency of humorinitiated by novice versus more experienced therapists or during early versus later

therapy sessions. The effectiveness of the humorous interventions was examined by

comparing therapist-client interactions in which the therapist made a humorous

comment with randomly selected control interactions in which the therapist made a

nonhumorous comment. Trained judges rated the degree to which these therapist

statements facilitated subsequent client exploration and understanding and led to a


more positive attitude of the client toward the therapist. Overall, the results revealed

that the humorous therapist statements did not seem to produce any greater benefits

than did the nonhumorous control statements. On the contrary, those humorous

comments that elicited laughter in clients were actually judged to produce signifi-

cantly less client exploration and understanding as compared to nonhumorous

statements.

Further analyses of the types of humor used by therapists in this study revealed

that about 20 percent of the humor instances could be categorized as aggressive (supe-

riority or ridicule). Although clients typically responded somewhat negatively to this

type of humor, therapists were generally able to mitigate any lasting negative conse-

quences through the immediate use of a "recovery statement," which softened the

humor in some way. Nonetheless, this typically led to a shift away from the current

topic of discussion and an interruption of client self-exploration. In sum, this studyfurther highlighted potential risks of the use of humor by therapists and the need for

caution.

A similar method was used by Patrick Peterson and Howard Pollio (1982) to study

therapeutic effects of client-initiated humor in group rather than individual therapy.

Analyzing video recordings of five sessions of a single therapy group, they found that

over 75 percent of the humor generated by group members was negatively targeted

toward another group member or someone outside the group, while only seven

percent involved positive remarks of any sort. Analyses of the immediate effects of

laughter on the therapeutic climate of the group revealed that laughter in responseto humor directed at another group member led to a significant reduction in thera-

peutic effectiveness, whereas laughter at humor targeting generalized others outside

the group led to an increase in effectiveness. Qualitative analyses indicated that most

of the humor targeting other group members appeared to be a means of diverting

group discussion away from the current topic of conversation, whereas humor tar-

geting generalized others seemed to be a method of offering support and promoting

group feeling.

Jacob Megdell (1984) examined the effects of therapist-initiated humor on clients'

feelings of attraction or liking for the therapist during individual counseling sessions

taking place at two alcoholism treatment centers. After the sessions, videotapes of the

sessions were reviewed by the counselor and the client separately, and continuous

ratings were made of each individual's perceptions of therapist-initiated humor. Theclients also made continuous ratings of their feelings toward the therapist during the

session. The results revealed that client liking of the therapists tended to increase

significantly following segments that were perceived as being humorous by both the

therapist and the client, but not following humor that was perceived as funny by onlyone of them. These findings suggest a potential benefit of humor, but only when it is

enjoyed by both the client and the therapist together.

Some other studies that may be relevant to psychotherapy have examined the

effects of humor in physician-patient interactions. In one of these, researchers ana-

lyzed audiotapes of interactions between primary care physicians and their patients

during routine office visits, in order to identify interpersonal behavior patterns that


might differentiate between physicians who had had two or more malpractice insur-

ance claims against them and those who had none (Levinson et al., 1997). Besides

using more facilitation comments (e.g., informing patients about what to expect, solic-

iting their opinions, checking on their understanding), physicians with no malprac-tice claims were found to laugh more frequently and to use more humor in their

interactions with their patients.

In another study, various types ofhumor initiated by physicians and patients were

examined in audiotapes of physician-patient visits that were given either very highor very low satisfaction ratings by the patients following the sessions (Sala, Krupat,and Roter, 2002). The results revealed that high-satisfaction as compared to low-

satisfaction visits were characterized by significantly more frequent physician use of

positive types of humor (e.g., playful, light humor expressing caring, support, and

warmth, and relieving tension), but did not differ in physician use of negative types

of humor (e.g., humor putting down self, patient, or others), which in any case

occurred extremely rarely. With regard to patient-initiated humor, during high-satisfaction visits the patients were significantly more likely to engage in lighthearted,

tension-relieving humor and less likely to engage in humor that disparaged them-

selves or the physician. The patients were also much more likely to laugh at the physi-

cians' humorous comments during high-satisfaction as compared to low-satisfaction

visits. Since this study did not involve an experimental manipulation, it is impossibleto determine whether positive humorous interactions between physicians and patients

were a cause or merely a concomitant of patients' feelings of satisfaction.

In summary, research on the effects ofhumor on the therapeutic process has been

quite limited, with mixed results. Some studies have suggested that humorous inter-

ventions may be less helpful than nonhumorous ones, others have shown no differ-

ence in effectiveness, and still others have indicated some therapeutic benefits of

humor. These contradictory findings may be due to the fact that different types or

uses of humor can have quite different effects in therapy. Although some researchers

made an effort to distinguish between positive and negative types of humor, these

past studies may not have succeeded in identifying the crucial differences between

therapeutic and nontherapeutic forms of humor. More carefully refined research is

needed to investigate in more detail the potential benefits and risks of different

types of humor in therapy. In view of the ubiquity of humor and laughter in therapy,

and the many seemingly plausible hypotheses concerning its potential benefits (as

well as its potential risks), this is clearly a research topic that merits farther

attention.

Risks of Humor in Therapy

Although humor may potentially be beneficial for therapy, many clinicians have

also pointed out that it has some inherent risks. As we have seen in previous chap-

ters, humor may be used for many different purposes in everyday social interactions,

including such negative uses as disparagement and ridicule, enforcing conformity to

social norms, and avoiding dealing with problems. Even though most therapists are


careful to avoid using humor in these ways, there is a risk that their humor may be

misunderstood by clients and misperceived as coercive or aggressive. Since humor is

inherently ambiguous, there is always a possibility of misunderstanding. Therapiststherefore need to be alert to the way their humorous comments are perceived byclients and how they affect their feelings and perceptions.

In a frequently cited article, Lawrence Kubie (1970), a psychoanalyticallyoriented therapist, expressed particularly strong reservations about the use of humorin psychotherapy, pointing out a number of potential risks. He noted that therapists'

use of humor may convey to clients that they do not take their problems very seri-

ously. If therapists have to explain that something they said was only intended as a

joke, this is an indication that the humor was likely used inappropriately and insensi-

tively, since the client's failure to recognize it as humor indicates a lack of therapist

attunement to the client's feelings and needs. Kubie also argued that humor is some-

times used inappropriately by therapists as a defense against their own anxieties or as

a way of narcissistically showing off their own wittiness. When used by clients, humor

may also be an unhealthy defense mechanism, a way of avoiding dealing with prob-

lems, or a means of devaluing their own strengths and characteristics in a self-mocking

way (i.e., self-defeating humor). In addition, clients may have a maladaptive aggres-sive humor style. By engaging in humorous interactions with these sorts of clients,

the therapist may inadvertently reinforce an unhealthy style of humor.

Another risk of humor, according to Kubie, is that when the therapist treats

certain topics in a humorous manner, the client may take this to mean that these topics

are taboo and are not to be discussed seriously. In addition, clients may feel a need to

laugh along with a therapist to show that they have a "good sense of humor," even

when this superficial joviality covers underlying feelings of distress or resentment. Theuse of humor by the therapist may thus make it difficult for the client to express neg-ative feelings or disagreement. Kubie (1970) concluded his article by stating, "Humorhas its place in life. Let us keep it there by acknowledging that one place where it has

a very limited role, if any, is in psychotherapy" (p. 866).

Although few clinicians writing on this topic have taken such an extreme view as

Kubie, most seem to agree that there is some validity to his arguments. Just as theyneed to monitor carefully the impact of all their communications in therapy, clini-

cians need to be especially alert to the effects of their humor on their clients. However,this does not mean that therapy should always be serious and devoid of humor. Takinga more moderate approach, Thomas Kuhlman (1984) suggested a number of poten-tial benefits of humor, but also pointed out that when a client is struggling emotion-

ally with an issue, humor can be inappropriate if it diverts the client's attention awayfrom the problem rather than facilitating the ongoing processing of information.

Similarly, Robert Pierce (1994) suggested that, although it can often be beneficial,

humor is inappropriate in therapy (1) when it is used to belittle, laugh at, or mimic

the client; (2) when it is used defensively to divert attention away from an emotion-

ally charged problem onto safer topics; and (3) when it is irrelevant to the therapeu-tic purpose, gratifying the therapist's own need for amusement and wasting valuable

therapy time and energy.


Waleed Salameh (1987) developed a five-point rating scale for evaluating the

appropriateness of therapists' use of humor in therapy sessions. Level 1 refers to

destructive uses ofhumor, such as sarcastic and vindictive humor that elicits feelings of

hurt and distrust in clients. Level 2 is harmful humor, which includes humor that is

irrelevant or not attuned to clients' needs. This would include uses of humor where

the therapist subsequently has to retract it or make amends by reassuring the client

that it was not intended seriously. Level 3 refers to minimally helpful humor, which pro-motes a positive therapist-client interaction, but remains mostly a response to the

client's own humor rather than being initiated by the therapist. Level 4 is described

as very helpful humor that is initiated by the therapist and is attuned to the client's

needs, facilitating self-exploration and self-understanding. Finally, Level 5 refers to

outstandingly helpful humor that conveys a deep understanding of the client, is sponta-neous and well-timed, and accelerates the process of client growth and change.

Although the reliability and validity of this rating scale still need to be evaluated, it

might be a useful tool for researchers wishing to investigate therapeutic humor, as

well as for supervisors to evaluate the use of humor by therapists in training.

Therapists need to be especially careful in using humor with clients who have

particular humor-related difficulties. Willibald Ruch and Rene Proyer (in press) have

coined the term "gelatophobia" to refer to a psychological disorder characterized bya morbid fear of being laughed at and not taken seriously. They created a reliable self-

report scale to assess this trait, which is thought to develop from repeated experiencesof being the object of ridicule and mockery early in life. Investigations using this

measure have demonstrated that clinically identified gelatophobic individuals could

be reliably distinguished from patients with other types of social anxiety and depres-sive disorders as well as nonclinical control subjects.

The study found that people with gelatophobia are fearful of exposing themselves

to others lest they be laughed at, tend to be socially avoidant and anxious, and have

high levels of neuroticism and introversion and low self-esteem. They have great dif-

ficulty enjoying any kinds of humor in their social interactions, since they are always

suspicious that others are laughing at their expense. Clearly, the use of humor in

therapy with such individuals is fraught with difficulties, and needs to be approachedwith great sensitivity to avoid retraumatizing the client. Indeed, one of the goals of

therapy in such cases might be to help clients gradually to overcome their aversion

to humor by means of techniques that have been developed for treating other typesof phobias.

A very different type of humor-related difficulty is seen in clients who use humor

excessively as a way of trivializing their problems and avoiding dealing with difficul-

ties. Psychiatrist Ned Marcus (1990) described certain types of therapy clients who

engage in a pathological form of humor during therapy, treating their psychological

problems and the therapeutic process itself as "all one big joke." Such uses of humor

may be accompanied by other avoidant behaviors, such as frequently arriving late for

sessions, failing to complete homework assignments, and generally devaluing the ther-

apeutic process. In treating these clients, the therapist needs to be careful not to join

into the humor and thereby reinforce the avoidant behavior. Marcus advocated the

use of cognitive therapy techniques to help these clients become aware of the

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

dysfunctional automatic thoughts underlying their humor (e.g., unaccountability,

incongruity, inconsequentiality), and to encourage them to gain a more realistic per-

spective. The goal here is not to eliminate the client's sense of humor, but to make it

more integrated with reality and therefore healthier.

Conclusion

There appears to be a growing interest among many psychotherapists and coun-

selors in the potential role ofhumor in treatment. Clinicians who have written on this

topic have ranged from those who enthusiastically advocate humor as a highly bene-

ficial component of therapy, to those who express a more cautious and balanced

approach, to those who perceive the risks of humor in therapy as far outweighing any

potential benefits. The existence of such strongly opposing views suggests that the

truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. As we have seen throughout this book,

humor may be viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can be used in

therapy, just as in other social relationships, for a variety of purposes, both prosocialand aggressive.

Not surprisingly, humor occurs quite frequently in psychotherapy, just as it does

in all sorts of interpersonal interactions. Like any type of communication, it can be

used effectively or ineffectively in therapy. On one hand, it can be used empathicallyand in a caring and genuine manner to foster the therapeutic relationship and to

encourage client self-exploration, insight, and change. On the other hand, it can be

used inappropriately, either in an extreme way by denigrating the client to further

the therapist's own needs at the client's expense, or in a more mild way by distracting

from and interfering with the therapeutic process. Thus, the ability to use humor

effectively and appropriately seems to be best viewed as a type of social competence

(Yip and Martin, in press) that novice therapists naturally possess to varying degrees.The ability to use humor therapeutically is a skill that needs to be developed and

honed by therapists in training, just as they need to learn a variety of other clinical

skills.

Most of the existing literature on humor in therapy is based on case examples and

clinical impressions. In recent years, there is growing recognition of the importanceof evidence-based approaches to therapy, and the need for clinicians to employ treat-

ment interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness. Unfortunately, apart from a

few therapy outcome and process studies, there is currently little empirical research

examining the effectiveness of humor-based interventions or the types of humor that

may be appropriate or inappropriate for therapy. Further research is clearly needed

to investigate which uses of humor may be beneficial or detrimental in treating which

sorts of problems with which types of clients.

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

Although education was traditionally seen as a rather serious and solemn under-

taking, pedagogical trends in recent decades have shifted toward the promotion of a


more relaxed learning environment and an emphasis on "making learning fun." Thecurrent prevailing philosophy of education argues that students are much more likely

to be motivated to learn and to retain information if they are happy and amused than

if they are feeling anxious and threatened (Oppliger, 2003). Consistent with this trend,

many educators in recent years have recommended that teachers introduce humorinto the classroom by sprinkling funny anecdotes, examples, and illustrations through-out their lessons, displaying comical images and sayings on the classroom walls, and

encouraging frequent humor production in their students.

A number of popular books and articles in education journals written by teach-

ers and educational experts have touted humor as a very useful and effective teachingtool with a wide range of benefits (e.g., Cornett, 1986; Struthers, 2003; Tamblyn,

2003). One author described humor as one of the teacher's "most powerful instruc-

tional resources" and claimed that it can be used for such diverse purposes as cor-

recting reading difficulties, controlling behavioral problems, building vocabulary,

teaching foreign languages, and integrating students who are socially isolated

(Cornett, 1986, p. 8).

In general, it has been suggested that humor in the classroom helps to reduce

tension, stress, anxiety, and boredom; enhances student-teacher relationships; makes

the classroom less threatening for students; makes learning enjoyable, creating posi-

tive attitudes toward learning; stimulates interest in and attention to educational mes-

sages; increases comprehension, cognitive retention, and performance; and promotes

creativity and divergent thinking (R. A. Berk and Nanda, 1998; A. P. Davies and Apter,

1980; Ziegler, Boardman, and Thomas, 1985). The use of humor has been seen as an

especially useful tool in teaching students about sensitive, anxiety-arousing topics such

as death and suicide (H. A. Johnson, 1990), and in teaching courses that are typically

associated with negative attitudes and anxiety, such as undergraduate statistics (R. A.

Berk and Nanda, 1998). Based on the presumed cognitive, emotional, social, and phys-

iological benefits of humor, some educators have even suggested that one of the goalsof education should be to facilitate the development of a good sense of humor in

students (Bernstein, 1986; Masselos, 2003).

Most of these enthusiastic endorsements of humor are based on anecdotal evi-

dence and teachers' reports of their own experiences in the classroom. Empiricalresearch evaluating the claimed educational benefits of humor is unfortunately quite

limited, much of it is over two decades old, little replication has taken place, and the

findings have been rather mixed (Teslow, 1995). Nonetheless, there is some research

on humor in education addressing the following questions: (1) How often and in what

ways do teachers typically use humor in the classroom? (2) Does humor improve the

classroom environment and make learning more enjoyable for students? (3) Doeshumor in teaching improve students' ability to learn and retain information? (4) Doesthe inclusion of humor in tests and exams help to reduce test anxiety and improvestudent performance on the tests? and (5) Does humor in textbooks help to makethem more understandable and improve students' ability to learn the material? In the

following sections I will review research findings addressing each of these questions,followed by some general caveats concerning the use ofhumor in education (for more

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

detailed reviews of research in this area, see Bryant and Zillmann, 1989; Oppliger,

2003; Teslow, 1995).

Descriptive Studies of Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom

Evidence from several studies indicates that many teachers tend to use humor

quite frequently in classroom settings. For example, an analysis of tape recordings of

typical lectures by university professors found an average of a little over three instances

of humor per 50-minute class (Bryant et al., 1980). Similar rates of humor have also

been found among high school and elementary school teachers (Bryant and Zillmann,

1989; Gorham and Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991). There is some evidence that

male teachers tend to use humor in the classroom more frequently than do female

teachers, although this sex difference appears to have diminished over the past 20

years (Bryant et al., 1980; Gorham and Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991; Van Giffen,

1990).

What kinds of humor do teachers use? Although most educational experts rec-

ommend that teachers avoid the use of teasing and ridicule, there is evidence that

aggressive forms of humor are actually fairly common in the classroom. In a study byJoan Gorham and Diane Christophel (1990), college students were asked to write brief

descriptions of all humorous comments made by instructors during classes. Analysesof these humor descriptions indicated that over half of all instances of humor by the

college instructors could be categorized as "tendentious" or aggressive, in that theyinvolved poking fun at a person, a group of people, or an institution. As many as 20

percent of all humorous comments by instructors made fun of an individual student

in the classroom or the class as a whole, while other tendentious humor targeted the

topic or subject of the course, the instructor's academic department, the university,

the state, or famous people at the national or international level. About 12 percent of

the humor was targeted at the instructors themselves, in what might be described

as self-deprecating or perhaps self-defeating humor. Less than half of the college in-

structors' humor did not have an obvious target. These nontendentious forms

of humor included either personal or general anecdotes and stories that were either

related or unrelated to the subject of the lecture, "canned" jokes, and physical or vocal

comedy ("schtick"). In all, only about 30 percent of the humor was related to the

lecture topic.

In another study, James Neuliep (1991) conducted a large-scale survey of highschool teachers about their use of humor. The respondents were asked to describe in

some detail the most recent situation in which they had used humor in the classroom.

Responses to this question were used by the researcher to develop a taxonomy of

teachers' humor, which contained the following categories: (1) teacher-directed

humor (e.g., self-deprecation, describing an embarrassing personal experience); (2)

student-targeted humor (e.g., joking insult, teasing a student about a mistake); (3)

untargeted humor (e.g., pointing out incongruities, joke-telling, punning, tongue-in-cheek or facetious interactions, humorous exaggeration); (4) external source humor

(e.g., relating a humorous historical incident, showing a cartoon that is related or


unrelated to the subject, humorous demonstrations of natural phenomena); and (5)

nonverbal humor (e.g., making a funny face, humorous vocal style, physical bodily

humor). Although teachers seemed to be generally aware of the potential risks ofusing

overly aggressive forms of humor directed at students, humor involving teasing,

insults, and joking about students' mistakes still accounted for more than 10 percentof their overall humor.

In summary, teachers appear to use humor in a wide variety of ways, includingsome that appear rather aggressive, such as teasing and playful put-downs of students.

While much of their humor appears to be used to illustrate a pedagogical point, to

make a lesson more vivid and memorable, or simply to add some levity and playful

fun to the learning environment, teachers also appear to use humor for the same sorts

of purposes for which humor is used in other interpersonal contexts. As noted in

Chapter 5, humor serves a variety of social communication functions (e.g., social

probing, enforcing social norms and control, status and hierarchy maintenance, etc.),

and teachers use humor in their interactions with students for many of these purposes,

just as they do in their interactions with other people.

Teachers' Use of Humor and the Classroom Environment

Does humor improve the classroom environment and make learning more enjoy-able? Research on this question has provided a fair amount of evidence that the judi-

cious use of humor by teachers in the classroom increases students' enjoyment of

learning, their perceptions ofhow much they learn, and how positively they feel about

the course and the instructor (e.g., Wanzer and Frymier, 1999). Indeed, teachers with

a good sense of humor tend to be especially popular with their students (see Figure

8). Student surveys have found that a sense of humor is typically rated as one of the

most desirable characteristics of an effective teacher (Check, 1986; Fortson and

Brown, 1998; Powell and Andresen, 1985).

Other research has shown that teachers who are observed to use more humor in

the classroom are rated more positively by their students. One study employing tape

recordings of classroom lectures to evaluate the frequency of humor used by college

instructors found that teachers who told more funny stories and jokes in the class-

room received more positive overall evaluations from their students, and were rated

as being more effective and appealing and having a better delivery, but were not

necessarily seen as being more competent or intelligent (Bryant et al., 1980).

Other research indicates, however, that some types of humor used by the teacher

may have a negative rather than a positive impact on student evaluations. For example,Gorham and Christophel (1990) found that, whereas a greater proportion of humor-ous anecdotes and stories in college instructors' humor was positively associated with

students' perceptions of how much they learned in the course and their positive atti-

tudes toward the instructor and the course, a greater proportion of tendentious or

aggressive humor was associated with less positive evaluations by students.

Some early research suggested that these effects of humor use on student

appraisals occurred primarily for male instructors, whereas for female teachers humor

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

FIGURE 8 Teachers' use of humor in the classroom contributes to greater immediacy.David Buffington/Getty Images/PhotoDisc

did not appear to have much of an effect one way or the other (Bryant et al., 1980).

However, more recent research suggests that this gender difference may have disap-

peared, perhaps due to changes in sex role expectations in the general culture. Gorhamand Christophel (1990) found significant correlations between instructors' humor use

and positive student evaluations for female as well as male teachers, although the

effects were still somewhat stronger for males. In contrast, Katherine Van Giffen

(1990) found that college students' ratings of the degree to which an instructor used

humor were more strongly predictive of teacher evaluations for female than for male

instructors.

The value of humor in the classroom may be particularly related to its role in

promoting a sense of immediacy. Immediacy is an educational concept referring to

the degree to which the teacher makes a close personal connection with students, as

opposed to remaining distant and aloof (Andersen, 1979). It has been found to be

enhanced by such teacher behaviors as using personal examples from one's own life,

encouraging students to enter into discussions in class, addressing students by name,

praising students' work, and looking and smiling at the class while speaking. Past

research has indicated that greater levels of immediacy are associated with more pos-

itive student attitudes toward the class and instructor, greater enjoyment and motiva-

tion, and greater perceived learning (Andersen, 1979; Gorham, 1988; D. H. Kelley

and Gorham, 1988). Humor may be another method for instructors to reduce the

psychological distance between themselves and their students, and thereby increase

the level of immediacy.In the study by Gorham and Christophel (1990) mentioned earlier, college

students were asked to observe and record instances of humor by professors during

lectures, as well as completing a measure of the degree to which these instructors


engaged in a variety of verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. The results

revealed significant positive correlations between the frequency of positive types of

humor observed in the lectures and the instructors' overall verbal and nonverbal

immediacy. More specifically, teachers with higher overall immediacy told propor-

tionately more humorous anecdotes and stories and exhibited more physical/vocal

comedy; however, they also used less tendentious (aggressive) and self-deprecating

(likely self-defeating) humor. Interestingly, no differences were found in the degreeto which the humor used by teachers with high versus low immediacy was related to

the lecture topic or course content.

Melissa Wanzer and Ann Frymier (1999) also found that college students' ratings

of the degree to which particular professors engaged in humor were positively asso-

ciated with measures of the instructors' immediacy and responsiveness to students. In

addition, analyses revealed that the significant associations found between instructors'

humor and students' course evaluations and perceptions of learning were largely (but

not entirely) accounted for by immediacy. Thus, humor seems to be one componentof a broader set of teacher behaviors that contribute to a sense of immediacy in the

classroom, which in turn results in more positive teacher and course evaluations and

greater perceived learning in the students.

Teachers' Use of Humor and Students' Learning

Educators advocating the use of humor in teaching have claimed that humor not

only promotes a positive, enjoyable atmosphere in the classroom but also helps stu-

dents to learn and retain information better, leading to higher levels of academic

performance. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain why lecture mate-

rial that is accompanied by humor might be learned and remembered better than

information that is presented in a more serious manner (Oppliger, 2003; Teslow,

1995). First, the positive emotion accompanying humor (i.e., mirth) may become asso-

ciated with the overall learning experience, giving students a more positive attitude

toward education in general and increasing their motivation to learn, resulting in

higher academic achievement. Second, the novelty and emotionally arousing proper-ties of humor may help to attract and sustain students' attention onto the lesson, thus

facilitating acquisition of information. Third, the incongruous mental associations

that are an inherent characteristic of humor may facilitate the process of cognitive

elaboration, helping in the storage and retention of information in long-term memory.

Finally, humorous memory cues associated with previously learned information mayfacilitate the retrieval of this information from long-term memory at a later date whenstudents are answering questions on a test or examination.

Early studies investigating children's attention to humorous educational televi-

sion programs have provided some evidence of the hypothesized attention-drawingeffects of humor, at least in young children. For example, one study found that, when

given a choice of educational television programs to watch, first- and second-gradechildren were more likely to select those containing humor, especially if the humorwas fast-paced (Wakshlag, Day, and Zillmann, 1981). Similar findings were obtained

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

by Dolf Zillmann and his colleagues (1980), who concluded that "the educator whodeals with an audience whose attentiveness is below the level necessary for effective

communication should indeed benefit from employing humor early on and in

frequent short bursts" (p. 178).

Beyond the attention-grabbing effects of humor, a number of studies over the

years have investigated the question ofwhether information that is taught in a humor-ous way is learned and remembered better than information that is presented in a

more serious manner. The results of early educational research on this topic were

quite disappointing. Charles Gruner (1976) reviewed nine such studies and concluded

that all except one failed to show any influence of humor on learning. Outside of the

educational context, early research on the effects of humor on memory for speechesalso generally found no differences in learning between humorous and serious

speeches (Gruner, 1967).

A few later educational studies showed more promising results, although the

findings across studies continued to be mixed. For example, Ann Davies and Michael

Apter (1980) randomly assigned children between the ages of 8 and 1 1 to view either

humorous or nonhumorous versions of several 20-minute audio-visual educational

programs on topics such as language, science, history, and geography. The humorous

versions of the programs were identical to the nonhumorous versions except for the

random insertion of a number of funny cartoons. In support of the hypothesis that

humor enhances learning, testing revealed that the children in the humorous condi-

tion recalled a significantly greater amount of information from these presentationsthan did those in the nonhumorous condition, both immediately after the presenta-tions and at one-month follow-up, although this difference in memory retention was

no longer apparent nine months later.

The strongest evidence for beneficial effects of humor on learning in an educa-

tional context comes from two naturalistic experiments conducted by Avner Ziv

(1988b). Criticizing earlier laboratory studies for their methodological flaws, artifi-

ciality, lack of ecological validity, and short duration, Ziv examined the effects of

humorous lectures on student performance in an actual course over a whole semes-

ter. In the first experiment, students in an introductory statistics course were randomly

assigned to receive the same 14-week course from the same instructor in either a

humorous or a nonhumorous condition. In the humorous condition, the instructor,

who had received training on the effective use of humor in education, inserted three

or four funny anecdotes, jokes, or cartoons into each lecture to illustrate key concepts.

Thus, humor was used as a sort of mnemonic device, or memory aid, to help students

remember important points. The nonhumorous condition contained the same course

material without the humorous illustrations. At the end of the semester, analyses of

the students' grades on the final exam revealed that those in the humor condition

obtained significantly higher average grades, with a difference of nearly 10 percent-

age points being found between the two groups.

These remarkable findings were replicated by Ziv in a second experiment usingtwo classes of female students taking an introductory psychology course in a teach-

ers' college. Once again, students in the humorous condition achieved an average


grade that was about 10 percentage points higher than that obtained by those in the

nonhumorous condition, using the same multiple-choice final exam. In his discussion

of these results, Ziv argued that the stronger findings of these two experiments, com-

pared with the generally disappointing earlier educational research on this topic, mayhave been due to the fact that the humor was directly relevant to the course material,

it was limited to only a few instances per lecture hour, and the teachers were trained

in its effective use.

Ziv's conclusions appear to be generally supported by several more recent

carefully-controlled laboratory studies on the effects of humor on memory (Derks,

Gardner et al., 1998; Schmidt, 1994, 2002; Schmidt and Williams, 2001). As noted in

the review of this research in Chapter 4, these experiments provide quite consistent

evidence that humorous information is recalled better than nonhumorous information

when both are presented in the same context. If only humorous material is presented,

however, there is no apparent benefit for memory. Moreover, it is important to note

that the enhanced recall of humorous material occurs at the expense of memory for

any nonhumorous material that is presented at the same time. In other words, the

inclusion of humorous illustrations in a lecture may enhance students' memoryfor the humorous material, but it might also diminish their memory for other

information in the same lecture that is not accompanied by humor.

These findings suggest that, if teachers wish to use humor to facilitate students'

learning of course material, they should ensure that the humor is closely tied to the

course content. In addition, the constant use of humor throughout a lesson will have

little effect on retention. Instead, humor should be used somewhat sparingly to illus-

trate important concepts and not peripheral material.

Effects of Humor in Tests and Exams

Do students perform better on examinations containing some humorous ques-tions as compared to exams with no humor? Some authors have suggested that the

inclusion of humorous questions in examinations may help to reduce test anxiety and

consequently lead to improved performance. A number of studies have investigated

this hypothesis by examining test scores when students are randomly assigned to

receive either humorous or nonhumorous versions of the same multiple-choice tests

(e.g., Deffenbacher, Deitz, and Hazaleus, 1981; McMorris, Urbach, and Connor,

1985; Townsend and Mahoney, 1981; Townsend, Mahoney, and Allen, 1983). In this

research, humorous versions of the tests are typically created by modifying several of

the questions so that they contain either a funny "stem" or an amusing response

option. Several of these studies looked at tests in university psychology classes, while

others used English grammar or mathematics tests with elementary school children

ranging from third to eighth grade.

The results of this research have generally been quite disappointing. A review of

1 1 studies of this type concluded that there is no convincing evidence that humorous

tests lead to better overall performance than do nonhumorous tests (McMorris,

Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo, 1997). In fact, the only clearly significant main effect

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

indicated poorer performance among students receiving the humorous version of a

test. Most of these studies also examined potential moderating effects of trait anxiety,

hypothesizing that humorous tests may be most effective in increasing the perfor-mance of highly anxious students but less effective for students who were low on

anxiety. However, these results were decidedly mixed. Only one study showed a sig-

nificant interaction in the predicted direction, with a humorous version of an exam

boosting the performance of highly anxious students but not those low on anxiety

(R. E. Smith et al., 1971). In contrast, a few studies found die opposite pattern, with

high-anxious students scoring better on the nonhumorous test and low-anxious stu-

dents scoring better on the humorous one (e.g., Townsend and Mahoney, 1981). Yet

other studies found no significant interaction at all between anxiety level and humorintervention in the prediction of test scores (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1981).

One important variable may be whether or not the students actually find the

humorous items to be funny. Some students may not understand the humor, may not

think it is particularly amusing, or may even find these items to be annoying, perhaps

interfering with performance. Only one study asked students in the humorous exam

condition to rate the funniness of the items. This study produced a significant inter-

action, with students who rated the test as funny having significantly higher scores on

the test than did those who did not find it funny (McMorris et al., 1997). Althoughthis finding needs to be replicated, it suggests that teachers wishing to use humorous

exam items should be careful to ensure that the humor is understandable and enjoy-able to the students.

Although there is little evidence that humorous test items improve students'

actual performance on a test, findings from these studies do suggest that students gen-

erally respond favorably to tests that include some humorous items. When asked about

their reactions to the humorous versions of the tests, the vast majority of students

perceived them to be enjoyable and helpful rather than detrimental to their per-formance. In their review of this literature, McMorris and colleagues (1997) con-

cluded that, although there is no evidence that humor in tests either helps or hinders

students' performance, the judicious use of humor may be beneficial in malting exams

more enjoyable to the students. They noted, though, that it is important to ensure

that the humor is positive, constructive, and appropriate for the students.

Effects of Humor in Textbooks

Many high school and college textbooks contain funny cartoons and other humor-

ous materials to illustrate the information in the text. Does the inclusion of this sort

of humor actually help students to learn the material better? In one study designedto investigate this question, students were randomly assigned to read different ver-

sions of a draft chapter of a college textbook containing either no humor, moderate

amounts of humor, or extensive humor in the form of cartoons illustrating points in

the text (Bryant et al., 1981). No differences were found across the three humor con-

ditions on a subsequent test of recall of information from the chapter, suggesting that

the presence of humorous cartoons had no effect on learning. However, the humor


did apparently have some influence on the participants' enjoyment and perceptions

of the chapters. In particular, humorous as compared to nonhumorous versions were

rated as more enjoyable, but they were also rated as less persuasive and showing less

author credibility. On the other hand, the amount of humor did not affect students'

ratings of interest, likelihood of reading more of the book, or likelihood of taking a

course with this book as the text.

In another study, college students were asked to rate a randomly assigned chapter

from an introductory psychology textbook on a number of dimensions such as level

of interest, enjoyableness, persuasiveness, and so on (D. M. Klein, Bryant, and

Zillmann, 1982). The chapters were then analyzed by the researchers for the amount

of humor they contained. Correlational analyses revealed that textbooks containingmore humor tended to be rated by the students as more enjoyable, but the amount

of humor was unrelated to ratings of interest, persuasiveness, capacity for learning, or

desire to read more on the topic. Although research on this topic is quite limited, the

overall findings suggest that humor in textbooks may be useful for boosting student

appeal (and perhaps increasing the likelihood of adoption by course instructors), but

it does not seem to improve students' ability to learn the information or their

perceptions of the credibility of the book.

Caveats in the Use of Humor in Education

Most educators who advocate the use of humor in teaching are careful to note

that aggressive forms of humor such as sarcasm, ridicule, and put-down humor have

no place in the classroom. Nonetheless, as Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (1989)

pointed out, research indicates that many teachers actually use hostile forms ofhumorwith their students, including ridicule, sarcasm, and teasing. These types of humor

may be perceived by some teachers as a potent method of correcting undesirable

behavior in their students such as tardiness, inattention, failure to complete assign-

ments, disruptive behavior, and so on. By teasing or ridiculing a student, teachers mayfeel that they can correct individual students as well as setting an example for the rest

of the class. Indeed, research evidence suggests that these techniques may be quite

effective as behavioral deterrents, since observing another person being ridiculed can

have a powerful inhibiting effect on children's behavior by the time they reach six

years of age (Bryant et al., 1983).

However, there is also abundant evidence that ridicule and other forms of aggres-sive humor can have a detrimental effect on the overall emotional climate of a class-

room. For example, in a study discussed in Chapter 5, college students who observed

another person being ridiculed became more inhibited, more conforming and fearful

of failure, and less willing to take risks (Janes and Olson, 2000). The research byGorham and Christophel (1990) discussed earlier also indicates that teachers who use

more aggressive forms of humor in the classroom are evaluated more negatively bytheir students. Clearly, the use of humor to poke fun at students for their ineptness,

slowness to learn, ignorance, or inappropriate behavior can be damaging, creating an

atmosphere of tension and anxiety, and stifling creativity.

HUMOR IN EDUCATION

Another potential risk of humor in education, particularly with younger children,

is that it might be misunderstood and lead to confusion (Bryant and Zillmann, 1989).

Humor often involves exaggeration, understatement, distortion, and even contra-

diction (e.g., in irony). These types of humor might inadvertently cause students

to fail to understand the intended meaning and to learn inaccurate information.

Because of the novelty of the images that such distorting humor can convey, such

inaccuracies may also be particularly easy to remember and especially resistant to

memory decay.

These potential risks of humor with primary school children are supported bytwo studies finding that educational television programs containing humorous exag-

geration or irony led to distortions in children's memory for the information being

taught (J. Weaver, Zillmann, and Bryant, 1988; Zillmann et al., 1984). These

memory-distorting effects of humor were found in children from kindergarten to

grade four. Interestingly, even when the researchers added statements that identified

and corrected the factual distortions introduced by the humor, this was not enoughto overcome the distorting effects of humor on children's recall. The authors of these

studies concluded that the vividness of the humorous images was recalled and not the

verbal corrections. Thus, teachers ofyoung children who use humor need to be careful

to ensure that their humorous statements are not misunderstood.

Conclusion

As with humor in psychotherapy and, indeed, in all types of social interactions,

the role ofhumor in education turns out to be more complex than it might first appear.

Consistent with our conclusions about humor in psychotherapy, humor seems to be

best viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can be used for a variety

of purposes in teaching. Humor may be used by teachers in potentially beneficial waysto illustrate pedagogical points, to make lessons more vivid and memorable, and to

make the learning environment generally more enjoyable and interesting for students.

On the other hand, it may be used in more negative ways that are coercive or demean-

ing to students, and it can distract students' attention away from more important

points or distort their understanding of the information. As Bryant and Zillmann

(1989) observed, success in teaching with humor "depends on employing the right

type ofhumor, under the proper conditions, at the right time, and with properly moti-

vated and receptive students" (p. 74).

Although empirical research on the effects of humor in education has been quite

limited and the findings have been somewhat inconsistent, the existing research does

suggest that appropriate uses of humor by teachers in the classroom are associated

with more positive teacher evaluations, greater enjoyment of the course, and greater

perceived learning by the students. However, the use of aggressive types of humor is

associated with more negative student evaluations. The judicious use of humor seems

to be particularly beneficial in increasing the level of immediacy in the classroom,

reducing the psychological distance between teachers and students.


In addition, although the research results have been rather mixed, there is evi-

dence from some naturalistic classroom studies, as well as some recent well-controlled

laboratory experiments on humor and memory, indicating that information that is

presented in a humorous manner is remembered better than information presented

in a serious way when both occur in the same context. However, the enhanced learn-

ing of humorous material occurs at the expense of poorer learning for nonhumorous

information. Teachers who wish to employ humor in their lessons to help students

remember the material should therefore be careful to use humor sparingly and to

associate it with key concepts rather than irrelevant information.

Finally, there is little evidence that the inclusion of humorous questions on tests

reduces test anxiety and improves test performance or that funny cartoons and illus-

trations in textbooks enhance students' ability to learn the information in the text,

although these uses of humor do appear to make the tests and textbooks more enjoy-

able to the students.

HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE

Work is typically viewed as "serious business" and it seems to be the very antithe-

sis of play. In recent years, however, there has been considerable interest in the

potential benefits of increasing the amount of humor that occurs in the workplace. Anumber of people have suggested that a more playful work environment in which

humor is encouraged might produce a happier, healthier, less stressed, and more pro-ductive work force, engendering better social interactions among workers and

managers, and fostering more creative thinking and problem solving (e.g., Morreall,

1991). Although research evidence for a link between worker happiness and produc-

tivity is controversial (laffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and

Patton, 2001), the assumption seems to be that the improved rapport, teamwork, and

creativity resulting from humorous interactions will not only make for a more enjoy-able work environment but will also translate into greater productivity and a better

bottom line for the company. Articles extolling the benefits of humor in the work-

place have appeared in numerous business magazines and trade journals (e.g., W. J.

Duncan and Feisal, 1989), and popular books have been written on the topic (e.g.,

Kushner, 1990).

In the past two decades these ideas have also given rise to a new breed of busi-

ness consultants who specialize in the promotion of humor at work (Gibson, 1994).

Besides producing newsletters, websites, books, and audiotapes proclaiming the

advantages of workplace humor, these "humor consultants" are frequently hired by

organizations to conduct entertaining workshops and seminars in which they teach

employees how to become more playful and humorous at work. While cautioning

against the use of inappropriate and offensive types of humor, they advocate that

workers engage in such playful activities as telling funny stories during breaks, makinga collection of jokes and cartoons to look at during times of stress, and posting

amusing baby pictures of fellow employees on a bulletin board.


Most of these presentations take the form of motivational sessions that involve

humorous hands-on activities designed to loosen up the audience and overcome their

seriousness and inhibitions, such as having them juggle scarves or balloons, wear red

clown noses, balance pennies on their foreheads, or tell each other amusing personalanecdotes. As Gibson (1994) noted, these efforts to promote humor at work are

appealing to management as well as employees, since they give both groups a greater

feeling of control. At the level of the individual, humor is seen as a tool for gainingcontrol over stress levels and relationships with fellow employees, while it gives orga-nizations a sense of control over their employees, increasing their motivation, pro-

ductivity, and efficiency.

Gibson pointed out that the view of humor taken by these humor consultants is

a "rational/utilitarian" one. In other words, they see humor as a planned activity that

can be controlled and used as a tool for success, rather than a spontaneous social

behavior comprising emotional and unconscious elements that are often difficult to

control and manage. In addition, the type of humor that they advocate is one that

does not question the corporate status quo and is aimed at putting up with the systemrather than challenging or trying to alter it. Unfortunately, there does not appear to

be any empirical research on the effectiveness of these sorts of humor interventions

in business, although their continued popularity suggests that they meet with a recep-tive audience among both workers and management.

Indeed, very little psychological research of any kind has been conducted on the

general topic of humor in the workplace. This is a potentially fruitful domain for

industrial-organizational psychologists to explore. Nonetheless, several largely

descriptive qualitative studies ofhumor in the work environment have been conducted

by sociologists and anthropologists. Many of these have been ethnographic studies in

which the researchers acted as participant observers in various work settings, carefully

observing the occurrence and effects of humor. These sorts of qualitative studies have

investigated humor among staff members in a psychiatric hospital (Coser, 1960), a

child care center (J. C. Meyer, 1997), and a hotel kitchen (R. B. Brown and Keegan,

1999); factory workers (Collinson, 1988; Ullian, 1976); members of a petroleum

exploration party (Traylor, 1973); and managers in a large multinational computer

company (Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993), a metropolitan zoo (D. M. Martin, 2004), and

various private companies (Grugulis, 2002).

In the following sections, I will briefly review some of the findings of these inves-

tigations as they pertain to the social functions of humor in the workplace, humorand the corporate culture, the use of humor in negotiations and mediation, and the

role of humor in leadership (see also W. J. Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap, 1990).

Social Functions of Humor in the Workplace

As I have already noted, humor serves a number of important social functions in

interpersonal communication. Besides being a form of play that enables individuals

to release tension and increase enjoyment, humor is a mode of communication that

is frequently used to convey certain types of information that would be more difficult


to express using a more serious mode (Mulkay, 1988). In particular, humor is often

used to communicate a socially risky message in an ambiguous context in a way that

allows both the speaker and the audience to "save face" if the message is not well

received.

Since the work situation is often characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty, it is

not surprising that humor is quite frequently used for these purposes at work. For

example, a worker who disagrees with a decision made by a supervisor can make a

joking comment about it in order to "test the water," rather than openly opposing the

superior. In this way, the worker can easily retract the criticism by saying it was "onlya joke" if the supervisor takes offense. These sorts of humorous comments can often

be quite funny and may generate a considerable amount of mirthful laughter, but theyalso have a more serious underlying communication function. Humor of this sort is

a ubiquitous form of social communication that occurs frequently in interactions

between people in the work environment just as in other social settings.

Although humor consultants frequently make the claim that most workplaces are

much too serious, research indicates that humor and laughter actually occur quite fre-

quently at work. Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra (2002 a) analyzed tape recordingsof a large number of team meetings of both blue-collar and white-collar workers in

various government departments, nonprofit organizations, and private companies, and

found that humorous comments and laughter among team members occurred an

average of once every two to five minutes. Humor and laughter occurred most fre-

quently in the meetings of factory workers and office workers in private companies,and somewhat less often (although still quite frequently) in government offices and

nonprofit organizations. Although the frequency ofhumor and laughter in these work

settings was considerably less (about one-eighth as often) than that observed in groupsof close friends during casual interactions in the home (J. Holmes and Marra, 2002b),

these findings indicate that humor is much more common in the workplace than is

often assumed.

Some of the qualitative studies of humor at work have focused on potentially

beneficial effects of humor for relieving stress, enhancing enjoyment, and facilitating

cohesiveness among workers. For example, in a participant observation study of

humor in a small family-owned business, Karen Vinton (1989) concluded that humor,in the form of telling humorous anecdotes, friendly teasing, and witty banter, served

a variety of largely beneficial social functions. In particular, humor was used as a meansof socializing new employees into the organizational culture, creating a more plea-sant work environment, lessening status differentials between people and thereby

making it easier for them to work cooperatively, and as a relatively nonconfrontational

way of prodding people to get their work done.

In a study of humor occurring in task-oriented managerial meetings, CarmineConsalvo (1989) observed that humor and laughter occurred most frequently duringtransition points, such as when group members moved from a problem-identification

phase to a problem-solving phase in their discussions. She concluded that humor at

these times signaled a willingness to work together to solve the problem and con-

veyed an open, accepting, and mutually supportive attitude among group members.


On the other hand, much of the research on humor in the workplace also reveals

the paradoxical nature of humor, showing that although it can be used to increase

cohesiveness and facilitate working relationships, it can also be used in subversive waysto express disagreement and create divisions among people. In a content analysis of

the humor observed in tape recordings of a number of mixed-gender team meetingsin two large business organizations, Holmes and Marra (2002b) distinguished between

humor that serves to strengthen existing solidarity and power relationships ("re-

inforcing humor") and humor that challenges existing power relationships ("subver-

sive humor"). Reinforcing humor consisted of amusing anecdotes and jokingcomments that served to emphasize and maintain friendly and collegial relationships

among participants.

These researchers found, however, that almost 40 percent of the humor in these

organizational meetings could be characterized as subversive. Interestingly, the fre-

quency of these more negative uses of humor in the workplace was about 10 times

that observed in groups of friends in casual nonwork settings, likely because of the

greater tensions and power differentials present in the workplace. Nearly half of this

subversive humor targeted specific individuals who were present in the team meet-

ings, often for the purpose of undermining their power or status. Another sizable

proportion of subversive humor was aimed at the group as a whole or the larger organ-

ization, challenging or criticizing particular values, attitudes, or goals. Finally, a small

proportion was directed at the societal level, questioning the ideology of the business

community or broader institutional or societal values.

The subversive humor that was observed in this study took a variety of forms.

The most frequent of these was the use of quips, defined as short witty or ironic com-

ments about the ongoing action or topic under discussion, which occurred much more

frequently in the work setting than in casual friendship groups. Other common forms

of subversive humor included jocular abuse (a witty insult or put-down remark aimed

at someone present), and role-play, in which one person parodied another person's

style of speaking.Based on these qualitative analyses, the authors suggested that subversive humor

in business meetings is a socially acceptable mechanism for subordinates to challengeor criticize superiors, disagree with others, or question group decisions. For managersand team leaders, it is an acceptable method of commenting on nonconformist or

uncooperative behavior and generally controlling participants in an interaction. Thus,these uses of humor serve a purpose of furthering the goals of individual participants

in team discussions, although they do not necessarily contribute to the overall

cohesiveness of the team.

In a review of sociological studies of humor in the workplace, Tom Dwyer (1991)

similarly concluded that humor occurs very frequently in most organizations and that

it often reflects the tensions and power dynamics within the organization. Accordingto Dwyer, humor can be used either to conserve and reinforce the status quo or to

undermine the authority of particular individuals and change the equilibrium of

power. For example, observational studies have shown that workers often use humorto joke about the inadequacies of managers, to complain about poor working


conditions, and to protest against seemingly arbitrary rules. For their part, managersuse humor to mask the authoritarian nature of a message or to create divisions amongsubordinates so as to weaken their collective power.

Dwyer also noted that joking is often used as a way of enforcing norms and expec-

tations, as well as a tool for constructing and defending group identity. The joking

and playful banter that frequently goes on among workers helps to define the differ-

ent social groupings, reinforces the ranking of group members within and between

groups, and clarifies the status of groups in relation to each other. According to Dwyer,the relative power and goals of individuals in the work setting determine who tells

jokes, who is the target of the jokes, and who laughs at them. Thus, an analysis of the

humor and laughter that occurs in an organization could be a useful tool for explor-

ing the power structures, tensions, and dynamics within the organization.

These varied social functions of humor are well illustrated in an observational

study by David Collinson (1988) examining the humor of male shop-floor workers in

the parts division of a lorry (truck) factory in England. Collinson observed that these

workers engaged in nearly constant joking, humorous banter, witty repartee, and

horseplay in their interactions with one another. While much of this humor could be

viewed on one level as a way of finding fun and releasing tension in the monotony of

tightly controlled, repetitious work tasks, on another level it could be seen as serving

several important social functions. One of these functions was putting up resistance

to the social organization of the company. For example, humor often involved makingfun of managers and white-collar staff, emphasizing the workers' self-differentiation

from, and antagonism toward, these groups.

Although the managers often tried to use humor to engage the workers and

obscure the conflict and power differential inherent in their relationships, the workers

tended to resist these overtures, excluding the managers from their joking relation-

ships. In addition to expressing antagonism and resistance toward management,humor on the shop floor served to enforce conformity among the workers themselves.

A good deal of humor, in the form of highly aggressive teasing, sarcastic put-downs,and practical jokes, seemed to be a way of communicating and enforcing group norms

and expectations, particularly concerning behaviors associated with working-class

masculinity. Anyone who deviated from these social norms would be subjected to con-

stant teasing and practical jokes, providing a powerful incentive to conform.

In summary, this brief review of the existing observational research suggests that,

although humor may be a way of releasing tension, having fun, and improving morale

at work, it also often serves more "serious" social functions. Humor can be a way of

increasing cohesiveness, facilitating communication, and reducing interpersonal ten-

sions, but it can also be a method of communicating disagreement, enforcing norms,

excluding individuals, and emphasizing divisions between groups.In view of the complexity, subversiveness, uncontrollability, and paradoxical qual-

ities of humor revealed by these analyses, it seems rather simplistic and naive to

suggest, as do some humor consultants, that simply increasing the level of humor and

fun in an organization will result in many desirable changes and improved produc-

tivity. Since humor is already ubiquitous in the workplace, serving many different


functions and reflecting the social structures and power dynamics of the organization,the task for managers seems to be not so much to increase the level of fun and laugh-

ter, but to understand the meaning of the humor that already exists and to attempt to

channel it in productive directions. This is likely easier said than done, however, and

more carefully controlled empirical research on this topic is clearly needed before wecan confidently provide useful guidance to business organizations about how best to

promote positive humor in the workplace.

Humor as a Reflection of Organizational Culture

The concept of corporate or organizational culture refers to the sense of shared

values, norms, and behavior patterns that bind members of an organization togetherand give it a distinctive identity (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Organizational researchers

view corporate culture as an important factor in determining the degree to which an

organization is able to remain productive and competitive. Some research indicates

that part of what makes for a successful organizational culture is a sense of cama-

raderie among employees and feeling good about what they do. Some authors have

suggested that the sharing of humor among members of an organization is an impor-tant aspect of a successful corporate culture (e.g., Clouse and Spurgeon, 1995).

In their study of humor in work team meetings described earlier, Holmes and

Marra (2002 a) examined the way in which the frequency, type, and style of humorthat arises in a particular workplace reflects the broader culture of the organization.For example, they found that blue-collar employees in a fairly cohesive and mutually

dependent factory work team tended to produce high-frequency humor in the form

of brief single quips using a competitive humor style (i.e., each trying to outdo the

other in wittiness), but in a socially supportive manner (i.e., using humor to agree

with, add to, elaborate, or strengthen the argument of a previous speaker). On the

other hand, during meetings of white-collar staff in a private commercial organiza-

tion, there was also a good deal of humor, but it took the form of more extended,

somewhat competitive humor sequences, and tended to be much more contestive than

supportive (i.e., using humor to challenge, disagree with, or undermine the authorityof previous speakers), reflecting the individualistic and competitive culture of this

private business.

Yet another pattern of humor was observed during staff meetings in government

departments and nonprofit organizations, where humor took the form of extended

sequences, a collaborative humor style (i.e., building on and extending one another's

humorous comments rather than trying to outdo one another with humor), and a

more supportive than contestive use ofhumor, reflecting a generally collegial, focused,

and cooperative style of interactions in these organizations as a whole. Thus, the

overall culture, goals, and emphases of a given organization seem to be reflected in

the ways individuals in the organization use humor in their interpersonal communi-cation. As suggested earlier, analysis of the humor occurring in an organization mightbe a useful method of evaluating its overall corporate culture. This is another topic

that may yield interesting findings in future research.


Humor in Negotiation and Mediation

Some authors have suggested that humor may be an important tool for facilitat-

ing negotiations and mediation, particularly during times of conflict and tension

between parties. John Forester (2004) emphasized that the use of humor in media-

tion is not simply a matter of telling jokes, but involves the expression of spontaneoushumor in the flow of conversation to alter perspectives, change disabling expectations,

reframe relationships, and provide multiple points ofview on topics. The use ofhumor

to "test the water" and to communicate potentially risky or threatening messages in

a face-saving way, as discussed earlier, seems to be particularly relevant in this context,

where interpersonal tensions and conflicting points of view are an inevitable part of

the process.

These communication functions of humor were illustrated in a qualitative studyofhumor observed in a video recording of sales negotiations between a salesman from

a parts supply company and a potential buyer who was a proprietor of a photographic

equipment shop (Mulkay, Clark, and Pinch, 1993). This study suggested that humoris used to deal with difficulties arising in these types of interactions in a way that avoids

confrontation and enables both parties to save face while still furthering their own

goals. For example, the prospective buyer used a great deal ofhumor as a way of refus-

ing to buy the salesman's products, requesting concessions, halting a persistent sales

pitch, suggesting that the prices were too high, and hinting that the goods were of

inferior quality. For his part, the salesman made use of humor to try to overcome the

buyer's resistance, to make fun of his various excuses for not buying the products, and

to forestall further criticism. Thus, humor seems to be a commonly used method for

dealing with problems and tensions that are inherent in these types of business

transactions, enabling individuals to express their views without appearing overly

confrontational.

Viveka Adelsward and Britt-Marie Oberg (1998) also conducted qualitative

research on the role of humor in business negotiations by analyzing all utterances that

were followed by laughter in tape recordings of a number of business meetings and

telephone conversations between buyers and sellers. As in the study by Consalvo

(1989) mentioned earlier, they found that during negotiation sessions, humor fre-

quently occurred around topic transitions, such as when a group was moving from

initial introductions to the discussion of a problem, or from the presentation of a

problem to a negotiation phase. They suggested that this use of humor served as a

way of structuring the ongoing process by signaling a desire of some participants to

move on to a different topic without appearing to be too abrupt or controlling. In

addition, humor often appeared to be used to smooth tensions between participants

and to find common ground.The researchers noted that the occurrence of laughter during negotiations was

often a sign that the participants were dealing with particularly difficult or sensitive

topics, such as haggling over a price. They also found that whether or not others

laughed at a humorous comment made by a speaker depended on the relative status

or power advantage of the speaker. In particular, joint laughter was much more likely


to occur when the speaker had higher status (e.g., the team leader) or had some other

advantage (e.g., being the buyer rather than the seller). In contrast, when a humor-ous comment was made by a speaker with lower status or one who was at some sort

of disadvantage, he or she was often the only one who laughed. This research sug-

gests that the ability to use humor effectively may be an important social skill for indi-

viduals involved in sensitive negotiations.

Humor in Leadership

It has often been suggested that a good sense of humor is an important charac-

teristic for effective leadership, along with other abilities such as intelligence, cre-

ativity, persuasiveness, good speaking ability, and social skills. Research on leadership

behavior indicates that effective leadership requires skills in the general areas of (1)

giving and seeking information, (2) making decisions, (3) influencing people, and (4)

building relationships (Yukl and Lepsinger, 1990). These broad skill areas have been

further divided into a variety of component behaviors, many of which have to do with

interpersonal relations and communication, such as the ability to communicate and

get along well with subordinates, peers, and superiors, to manage conflict, motivate

others, and enhance group cohesion and cooperation. As an important communica-

tion skill, humor can be seen as potentially useful to leaders and managers in manyof these areas. For example, the use of humor could be beneficial for teaching and

clarifying work tasks, helping to motivate and change behavior, promoting creativity,

coping with stress, and generally making the interactions between the manager and

subordinates more positive and less tense (Decker and Rotondo, 2001).

A few survey studies have examined the correlation between sense of humor and

perceived leadership qualities by asking workers to rate their supervisors on these

dimensions. In a survey of 290 workers, Wayne Decker (1987) found that those whorated their supervisors as being high in sense of humor also reported greater job sat-

isfaction and rated these supervisors as having generally more positive leadership

characteristics as compared to participants who rated their supervisors as low in sense

of humor.

Similarly, in two survey studies in which military cadets were asked about the per-

sonality traits of particularly good and bad leaders that they had worked with, Robert

Priest and Jordan Swain (2002) found that good leaders were rated as having a sig-

nificantly more warm, competent, and benign humorous style, whereas bad leaders

were rated as having a more cold, inept, and mean-spirited humorous style. On the

other hand, the two types of leaders did not differ in the degree to which they were

perceived to display boorish (versus reflective) or earthy (versus repressed) styles of

humor.

Wayne Decker and Denise Rotondo (2001) conducted a study to determine

whether the importance of a sense of humor for effective leadership differs for male

versus female leaders. These researchers asked a large number of men and women

employed in a variety of organizations and geographic areas to evaluate their man-

agers' use of positive and negative humor, task behaviors, relationship behaviors, and


overall leadership effectiveness. Positive humor referred to the managers' use of

humor to communicate, enjoyment of jokes, and use of nonoffensive humor, whereas

negative humor was their use of sexual and insulting humor.

Regression analyses showed that greater perceived use of positive humor by man-

agers was associated with more successful task and relationship behaviors and greater

overall effectiveness, whereas greater use of negative humor was related to lower

ratings on these measures of managerial competence. With regard to sex differences,

although male managers were rated as using both more positive and more negative

humor than female managers, the associations between humor and leadership com-

petence measures were found to be stronger for women than for men. Thus, the use

of benign humor by female as compared to male managers was more strongly posi-

tively associated with workers' perceptions of their leadership skills, and by the same

token the use of sexual or offensive humor was more negatively related to perceived

leadership in women than in men.

Overall, these studies provide evidence that supervisors who are perceived by their

subordinates to have a positive sense of humor also tend to be viewed as being effec-

tive leaders, although leaders who use humor inappropriately tend to receive more

negative evaluations of their leadership skills. Of course, the correlational and rather

subjective nature of this research makes it difficult to determine the direction of

causality. A greater sense of humor may cause a leader to be more effective, but these

findings may also simply be due to a "halo effect," whereby greater overall liking of

a supervisor may cause subordinates to perceive him or her as having a better sense

of humor as well as better leadership skills. Future research should employ more

objective assessments of humor and leadership instead of relying solely on employee

ratings. Further research is also needed to investigate the ways in which effective

leaders actually express humor and how this humor might contribute to their leader-

ship competence.

Conclusion

Humor consultants and others who advocate the promotion of humor in the

workplace often claim that increased levels of humor at work will result in a variety

of benefits, including greater teamwork and cooperation, improved social interactions

among workers and managers, better worker morale and health, reduced stress, and

greater creativity, problem solving, and productivity. Although most of the studies

of humor in the workplace are qualitative and descriptive, the existing research

suggests that these sorts of enthusiastic claims are somewhat simplistic. Althoughthe workplace is often viewed as excessively serious and devoid of humor, the

research indicates that humor and laughter actually occur quite frequently in most

organizations.

In addition, this research suggests that humor in the workplace serves a variety

of functions, including ones that could be detrimental to worker morale and a pro-ductive work environment, as well as ones that contribute to teamwork and cooper-ation. Besides being a form of play that is useful for relieving tension and making

GENERAL DISCUSSION

work more enjoyable, humor serves important functions as a mode of communica-tion that is useful for expressing potentially risky messages in the ambiguous context

of work. As such, humor can be used to convey many different types of messages and

to achieve many different goals. It may be used to lessen or to reinforce status dif-

ferences, to express agreement or disagreement, to facilitate cooperation or resistance,

to include others in a group or to exclude them, to strengthen solidarity and rela-

tionships, or to undermine power and status.

Thus, simply increasing the level of humor at work is not likely to have purely

positive consequences. Although most humor consultants would agree that certain

types of humor are inappropriate and detrimental in the workplace, it is not a simplematter to distinguish between detrimental and facilitative forms of humor, or to

promote one type of humor and not the other. For example, it is often difficult to

know where friendly teasing and playful banter end and where ridicule and unwanted

joking begin.

As in psychotherapy and education, there are potential risks as well as benefits

associated with humor in the workplace. One particularly negative type ofhumor that

has received considerable attention in recent decades is the use of derogatory humoras a form of harassment. Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap (1990) noted that work-related

sexual and racial harassment and discrimination cases are often precipitated by jokes,

teasing, and pranks of a sexual or racial nature. In a survey of 13,000 federal employ-

ees, the most prevalent form of sexual harassment was unwanted sexual teasing

and joking. Humor that involves horseplay and practical jokes can also create a stress-

ful work environment, cause disruptions or safety hazards, or result in property

damage.As in other areas, humor in the context of work seems to be best viewed as a type

of social skill or interpersonal competence (Yip and Martin, in press) that can be used

for negative as well as positive purposes. Thus, the task ofmanagers and business con-

sultants is not simply to increase the levels ofhumor among employees, but to attemptto understand the ways in which the humor that already exists reflects the power

dynamics and general culture within the organization. Improving the quality ofhumorin the workplace may require efforts to change the overall organizational culture and

power structures rather than simply having workers attend a workshop where theylearn to tell funny stories and engage in silly activities.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

A number of practitioners in the fields of psychotherapy and counseling, educa-

tion, and business consulting have touted the supposed benefits of humor and laugh-

ter in each of these domains, claiming that greater uses of humor might improve the

effectiveness of therapy and counseling, increase student enjoyment and learning in

education, and enhance health, morale, and productivity in the workplace. Most of

these claims are based on anecdotes and the personal experiences of practitioners.

Although empirical work in these areas is quite limited, our review of the relevant


research literature suggests a gap between many of the enthusiastic claims of practi-

tioners and the evidence of science.

Interestingly, although in some respects these advocates of humor applications

may be seen as going too far in their claims about the potential benefits of humor, in

other respects it can also be argued that they do not go far enough in recognizing the

prevalence and importance ofhumor in all types of social interaction. Although humor

promoters often claim that that there is not enough humor in psychotherapy, educa-

tion, and the workplace, studies indicate that humor and laughter actually occur quite

frequently in all of these domains. Since humor is a ubiquitous aspect of nearly all

interpersonal relationships, we should not be surprised to discover that it is frequently

encountered in the interactions between therapists and clients, between teachers and

students, and among individuals working in the same organizations.

Although practitioners who actively promote humor in these fields tend to view

it as generally positive and beneficial to mental and physical health, educational

achievement, and cooperative relationships at work, research indicates that humor can

be used for a wide range of purposes and to achieve many different goals, some of

which may be detrimental to the broader goals of therapists, educators, and business

organizations. In each of these fields, humor advocates tend to take a "rational/utili-

tarian" approach to humor (Gibson, 1994), seeing it as something that can be manip-

ulated, planned, and controlled in a rational way. However, a more complex view of

humor has emerged in the research that we have explored throughout this book, por-

traying it as a phenomenon that often occurs spontaneously and has unconscious

(as well as conscious) emotional and cognitive determinants that are not so easily

managed or controlled. Indeed, humor that is consciously created by therapists, teach-

ers, or managers with the goal of having a particular effect on others is likely to comeacross as stilted, forced, and artificial.

A more realistic view of humor seems to be that it is an inevitable and important

aspect of human social interaction in all areas of our lives, including therapy, educa-

tion, and the workplace. As such, it can serve many different social functions, depend-

ing on the goals, status, motives, and needs of the individual. Rather than simply tryingto increase the level of humor in each of the fields that we have discussed, we need

to try to gain a more thorough understanding of the ways humor is already being used

and the many functions served by different types of humor in these contexts. In this

way, we can begin to identify appropriate and beneficial types of humor that further

the goals of therapists, educators, and business leaders, as well as inappropriate and

detrimental forms of humor.

One research question that also requires further attention is the degree to which

it is even possible to modify people's sense of humor. Many of the applications of

humor that we have discussed involve helping people to increase the amount ofhumorthat they engage in or to change their predominant styles of humor (cf. McGhee,1999). However, it is still not clear whether this is even possible. As noted in Chapter9, the only published study addressing this question was one conducted by Ofra Nevoand her colleagues (1998). In this study, 101 female high school teachers were

randomly assigned to either an active-production humor training program (which

GENERAL DISCUSSION

provided training in a variety of humor creation techniques), a passive-appreciationhumor program (focusing on ways to increase opportunities for enjoying humor in

one's daily life), a nonhumorous activity control group, or a waiting list control group.All but the waiting list group met for seven weekly three-hour sessions.

At the end of the program, testing revealed that the two humor training groupswere only partially successful in improving participants' sense of humor. On the pos-itive side, the participants in the humor groups, compared to those in the control

groups, reported significantly more positive attitude towards humor and were rated

by their peers as having higher levels of humor production and appreciation. On the

negative side, however, they did not show any improvements on objective measures

of their ability to actually produce humor, and there were no changes in their scores

on self-report humor scales. There is clearly a need for further research to determine

the degree to which it is possible to increase the quantity or improve the quality of

people's habitual uses of humor and, if so, what training methods may be most effec-

tive. This sort of program evaluation research should be carried out by practitioners

before they attempt to promote the widespread implementation of unproven humorinterventions.

The general topic of humor applications presents many interesting questions and

potentially fertile topics for future research in the applied areas of clinical/counsel-

ing, educational, and industrial-organizational psychology. In each of these fields,

further research is needed to investigate the role and functions of humor, the ways

people use it to achieve their personal goals, and the types of humor that are poten-

tially beneficial as well as detrimental to broader professional goals.

Although practitioners who advocate humor applications in health care, psy-

chotherapy, education, and business have drawn attention to potentially interesting

research questions, there is also a risk that their excessive claims and simplistic, pop-

psychology writings may drive away some basic and applied researchers in psychol-

ogy, who may perceive these ideas as trivial and unimportant or may not wish to be

seen as promoting overly simplistic and unscientific agendas. However, this would be

unfortunate.

As I have tried to show throughout this book, humor is a ubiquitous aspect of

human behavior that touches on every area of psychology. It is an interesting phe-nomenon in its own right that merits further investigation to understand more fully

how it works and what functions it serves in human cognition, emotion, and social

behavior. Basic research of this kind may lead to interesting new insights about poten-tial applications in various domains. Whether the focus is on basic processes or prac-

tical applications, the psychology of humor continues to be a fascinating topic of

research that promises many more interesting and useful discoveries.

Abel, M. H. (1998). Interaction ofhumor and gender in moderating relationships between stress

and outcomes. Journal ofPsychology, 132(3), 267-276.

Abel, M. H. (2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumorResearch, 75(4), 365-381.

Abel, M. H., & Maxwell, D. (2002). Humor and affective consequences of a stressful task.

Journal of Social 6" Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 165-190.

Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36,

715-729.

Adams, E. R., & McGuire, F. A. (1986). Is laughter the best medicine? A study of the

effects of humor on perceived pain and affect. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, #(3-4),

157-175.

Adams, P., & Mylander, M. (1998). Gesundbeit!: Bringing good health to you, the medical system,

and society through physician service, complementary therapies, humor, andjoy. Rochester, VT:

Healing Arts Press.

Adelsward, V, & Oberg, B.-M. (1998). The function of laughter and joking in negotiation activ-

ities. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 11(4), 411-429.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1991). Infant-mother attachment and social

development: 'Socialisation' as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M.

Woodhead, R. Carr & P. Light (Eds.), Becoming a person (pp. 30-55). London: Routledge.

Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of

humor. Ethology & Sociobiology, 7(3-4), 253-270.

Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

373

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of'mental disorders (4th

ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1989). An examination of perceived control, humor, irra-

tional beliefs, and positive stress as moderators of the relation between negative stress and

health. Basic fa Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 101-117.

Andrews, R. (1993). The Columbia dictionary ofquotations. New York: Columbia University Press.

Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London:

Academic Press.

Apter, M. J. (1991). A structural-phenomenology of play. In J. H. Kerr & M. J. Apter (Eds.),

Adult play: A reversal theory approach (pp. 13-29). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Apter, M. J. (1992). The dangerous edge: The psychology of excitement. New York: Free Press.

Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life:A guide to reversal theory.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Apter, M. J., & Smith, K. C. P. (1977). Humour and the theory of psychological reversals.

In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 95-100). Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Arriaga, X. B. (2002). Joking violence among highly committed individuals. Journal of Inter-

personal Violence, 17(6), 591-610.

Arroyo, S., Lesser, R. P., Gordon, B., Uematsu, S., Hart, J., Schwerdt, P., et al. (1993). Mirth,

laughter and gelastic seizures. Brain, 116, 757-780.

Askenasy, J. J. (1987). The functions and dysfunctions of laughter. Journal of General Psychol-

ogy, 114(4), 317-334.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology ofhuman strengths: Fundamental ques-

tions andfuture directionsfor a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Atsumi, T, Fujisawa, S., Nakabayashi, Y, Kawarai, T, Yasui, T, & Tonosaki, K. (2004). Plea-

sant feeling from watching a comical video enhances free radical-scavenging capacity in

human whole saliva. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 55(3), 377-379.

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories ofhumor. Hawthorne, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor: Interna-

tional Journal ofHumor Research, 10(4), 395-420.

Attardo, S. (1998). The analysis of humorous narratives. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor

Research, 11(3), 231-260.

Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. E, & Di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mecha-

nisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor

Research, 75(1), 3-46.

Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representa-tion model. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 4(3-4), 293-347.

Averill, J. R. (1969). Autonomic response patterns during sadness and mirth. Psychophysiology,

5, 399^14.

Azim, E., Mobbs, D., Jo, B., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Sex differences in brain activa-

tion elicited by humor. Proceedings ofthe NationalAcademy ofSciences, 102(45), 16496-16501 .

Babad, E. Y. (1974). A multi-method approach to the assessment of humor: A critical look at

humor tests. Journal ofPersonality, 42(4), 618-631.

REFERENCES 31

Bachelor, A., & Horvath, A. (1999). The therapeutic relationship. In M. A. Hubble, B. L.

Duncan & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy

(pp. 133-178). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M. J. (2001). Not all laughs are alike: Voiced but not unvoiced

laughter readily elicits positive affect. Psychological Science, .72(3), 252-257.

Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M. J. (2003). Sounds of emotion: Production and perception of

affect-related vocal acoustics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000.

Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J., & Owen, M. J. (2001). The acoustic features ofhuman laugh-ter. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, //0(3, Pt 1), 1581-1597.

Bainum, C. K., Lounsbury, K. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1984). The development of laughing and

smiling in nursery school children. Child Development, 55(5), 1946-1957.

Bariaud, F. (1988). Age differences in children's humor. Journal of Children in Contemporary

Society, 20(1-2), 15^5.

Barnett, L. A. (1990). Playfulness: Definition, design, and measurement. Play fc Culture, 5(4),

319-336.

Barnett, L. A. (1991). The playful child: Measurement of a disposition to play. Play fc Culture,

4(1), 51-74.

Baron, R. A. (1978a). Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor. Journal ofPersonality &Social Psychology, 36(2), 189-197.

Baron, R. A. (1978b). The influence of hostile and nonhostile humor upon physical aggression.

Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 77-80.

Baron, R. A., & Ball, R. L. (1974). The aggression-inhibiting influence of nonhostile humor.

Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 23-33.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bateson, P. (2005). The role of play in the evolution of great apes and humans. In A. D.

Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature ofplay: Great apes and humans (pp. 13-24). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Belanger, H. G., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Derks, P. (1998). The effects of humor on verbal

and imaginal problem solving. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 11(1), 21-

31.

Bell, N. J., McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Interpersonal competence, social assertive-

ness and the development of humour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(1),

51-55.

Benedetti, F. (2002). How the doctor's words affect the patient's brain. Evaluation & the Health

Professions, 25(4), 369-386.

Bergen, D. (1998a). Development of the sense of humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense ofhumor:

Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 329-358). Berlin, Germany: Walter de

Gruyter.

Bergen, D. (1998b). Play as a context for humor development. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Playfrom birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (pp. 324-337).

New York: Garland.

Bergen, D. (2002). Finding the humor in children's play. In J. L. Roopnarine (Ed.), Conceptual,

social-cognitive, and contextual issues in the fields ofplay (pp. 209-220). Westport, CT: Ablex

Publishing.

Bergen, D. (2003). Humor, play, and child development. In A. J. Klein (Ed.), Humor in chil-

dren's lives: A guidebook for practitioners (pp. 17-32). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Berger, A. A. (1995). Blind men and elephants: Perspectives on humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-

action Publishers.

REFERENCES

Bergmann, M. S. (1999). The psychoanalysis of humor and humor in psychoanalysis. In J. W.Barron (Ed.), Humor and psyche: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 11-30). Hillsdale, NJ: The

Analytic Press.

Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the comic. Oxford: Macmillan.

Berk, L. S., Felten, D. L., Tan, S. A., Bittman, B. B., & Westengard, J. (2001). Modulation of

neuroimmune parameters during the eustress of humor-associated mirthful laughter. Alter-

native Therapies, 7(2), 62-76.

Berk, L. S., Tan, S. A, Fry, W. F., Napier, B. J., Lee, J. W., Hubbard, R. W., et al. (1989).

Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter. American Journal

of the Medical Sciences, 298, 390-396.

Berk, R. A., & Nanda, J. R (1998). Effects ofjocular instructional methods on attitudes, anxiety,

and achievement in statistics courses. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 11(4),

383-409.

Berkowitz, L. (1970). Aggressive humor as a stimulus to aggressive responses. Journal of Per-

sonality & Social Psychology, 16(4), 710-717.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Berlyne, D. E. (1969). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The

handbook ofsocial psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 795-852). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The

psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 43-60). New York:

Academic Press.

Bernet, W. (1993). Humor in evaluating and treating children and adolescents. Journal ofPsy-

chotherapy Practice & Research, 2(4), 307-317.

Berns, G. S. (2004). Something funny happened to reward. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(5),

193-194.

Bernstein, D. K. (1986). The development of humor: Implications for assessment and inter-

vention. Topics in Language Disorders, 5(4), 65-71.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.

Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook ofsocial psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281).

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.

Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1988). Humor and the right hemisphere:A narrative perspective. In H. A. Whitaker (Ed.), Contemporary reviews in neuropsychology

(pp. 109-126). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., & Powelson, J. A. (1986). Comprehension of humorous and

nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain & Cognition, 5(4),

399-411.

Bill, B., & Naus, P. (1992). The role ofhumor in the interpretation of sexist incidents. Sex Roles,

27(11-12), 645-664.

Binsted, K., Pain, H., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Children's evaluation of computer-generated

punning riddles. Pragmatics and Cognition, 5(2), 309-358.

Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Computational rules for generating punning riddles. Humor:

International Journal ofHumor Research, 10(1), 25-76.

Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (2001). Towards a model of story puns. Humor: InternationalJournal

ofHumor Research, 14(3), 275-292.

Bippus, A. M. (2000a). Humor usage in comforting episodes: Factors predicting outcomes.

Western Journal of Communication, 64(4), 359-384.

REFERENCES 377

Bippus, A. M. (2000b). Making sense of humor in young romantic relationships: Understand-

ing partners' perceptions. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 13(4), 395-417.

Bizi, S., Keinan, G., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). Humor and coping with stress: A test under

real-life conditions. Personality & Individual Differences, 9(6), 951-956.

Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-producedtickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1(7), 635-640.

Bloch, S. (1987). Humor in group therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook ofhumor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of humor (pp. 171-194). Sarasota, FL:

Professional Resource Exchange.

Bloch, S., Browning, S., & McGrath, G. (1983). Humour in group psychotherapy. British

Journal ofMedical Psychology, 56(1), 89-97.

Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions of emotion and the course of conju-

gal bereavement. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 106(1), 126-137.

Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Emotions and immunity. In M. Lewis & J. M.

Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook ofemotions (2nd ed., pp. 558-570). New York: Guilford.

Borcherdt, B. (2002). Humor and its contributions to mental health. Journal ofRational-Emotive

& Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 20(3^), 247-257.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Boyle, G. J., & Joss-Reid, J. M. (2004). Relationship ofhumour to health: A psychometric inves-

tigation. British Journal ofHealth Psychology, 9(1), 51-66.

Breckler, S. J., Olson, J. M., & Wiggins, E. C. (2006). Social psychology alive. Belmont, CA:

Thompson-Wadsworth.Bressler, E. R., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 27(1), 29-39.

Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as

sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 121-130.

Brodzinsky, D. M. (1975). The role of conceptual tempo and stimulus characteristics in chil-

dren's humor development. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 843-850.

Brodzinsky, D. M. (1977). Children's comprehension and appreciation of verbal jokes in rela-

tion to conceptual tempo. Child Development, 48(3), 960-967.

Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K., & Aiello, J. R. (1981). Sex of subject and gender identity as

factors in humor appreciation. Sex Roles, 12, 195-219.

Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a function of sex of subject, cre-

ativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 597-600.

Brown, G. E., Brown, D., & Ramos, J. (1981). Effects of a laughing versus a nonlaughing model

on humor responses in college students. Psychological Reports, 48(1), 35-40.

Brown, G. E., Wheeler, K. J., & Cash, M. (1980). The effects of a laughing versus a non-

laughing model on humor responses in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 29(2), 334-339.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal* in language usage. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R. B., & Keegan, D. (1999). Humor in the hotel kitchen. Humor: InternationalJournal


Brown, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1980). Relationships between facial electromyography and

subjective experience during affective imagery. Biological Psychology, 11, 49-62.

Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1988). Neuropsychological insights into humour. In J. Durant

& J. Miller (Eds.), Laughing matters: A serious look at humour (pp. 17-34). Essex, England:

Longman Scientific and Technical.

REFERENCES

Brownell, H. H., Michel, D., Powelson, J., & Gardner, H. (1983). Surprise but not coherence:

Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain & Language, 18(\), 20-27.

Brownell, H. H., & Stringfellow, A. (2000). Cognitive perspectives on humor comprehensionafter brain injury. In L. T. Connor & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Neurobehavior oflanguage and cog-

nition: Studies ofnormal aging and brain damage (pp. 241-258). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Bruehl, S., Carlson, C. R., & McCubbin, J. A. (1993). Two brief interventions for acute pain.

Pain, 54(\\ 29-36.

Bryant, J. (1977). Degree of hostility in squelches as a factor in humour appreciation. In A. J.

Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 321-327). Oxford: Perga-mon Press.

Bryant, J., Brown, D., Parks, S. L., & Zillmann, D. (1983). Children's imitation of a ridiculed

model. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 243-255.

Bryant, J., Brown, D., Silberberg, A. R., & Elliott, S. M. (1981). Effects of humorous illustra-

tions in college textbooks. Human Communication Research, 8(1), 43-57.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P. W., Crane, J. S., & Zillmann, D. (1980). Relationship between college

teachers' use ofhumor in the classroom and students' evaluations of their teachers. Journal

ofEducational Psychology, 72(4), 511-519.

Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1989). Using humor to promote learning in the classroom. In

P. E. McGhee (Ed.), Humor and children's development: A guide to practical applications

(pp. 49-78). New York: Haworth Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analy-

sis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Buckman, E. S. (Ed.). (1994). The handbook of humor: Clinical applications in psychotherapy.

Melbourne, FL: Robert E. Krieger.

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of inter-

personal competence in peer relationships. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 57(6),

991-1008.

Burling, R. (1993). Primate calls, human language, and nonverbal communication. Current

Anthropology, 34(1), 25-53.

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested

in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1-49).

Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.

Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook ofsocial psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026).


Butovskaya, M. L., & Kozintsev, A. G. (1996). A neglected form of quasi-aggression in apes:

Possible relevance for the origins of humor. Current Anthropology, 37(4), 716-717.

Byrne, D. (1956). The relationship between humor and the expression of hostility. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 53, 84-89.

Byrne, D. (1961). Some inconsistencies in the effect of motivation arousal on humor prefer-

ences. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 62, 158-160.

Cacioppo, J. T, Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T, Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A. (2000). The

psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook ofemotions (2nd ed., pp. 173-191). New York: Guilford.

Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differences in sense

of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor:


REFERENCES 37'

Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the role of humor appreciation in inter-

personal attraction: It's no joking matter. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research,

10(1), 77-89.

Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Nance, J. T. (2000). Exposure to humor before and after an

unpleasant stimulus: Humor as a preventative or a cure. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 13(2), 177-191.

Cann, A., Holt, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (1999). The roles of humor and sense of humor in

responses to stressors. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 12(2), 177-193.

Cantor, J. R. (1976). What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication,

26(3), 164-172.

Cantor, J. R., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1974). Enhancement of humor appreciation by trans-

ferred excitation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30(6), 812-821.

Caron, J. E. (2002). From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for

research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 75(3), 245-281.

Carroll, J. L. (1989). Changes in humor appreciation of college students in the last twenty-five

years. Psychological Reports, 55(3, Pt 1), 863-866.

Carroll, J. L. (1990). The relationship between humor appreciation and perceived physical

health. Psychology: A Journal ofHuman Behavior, 27(2), 34-37.

Carroll, J. L., & Shmidt, J. L. (1992). Correlation between humorous coping style and health.

Psychological Reports, 70(2), 402.

Carson, D. K., Skarpness, L. R., Schultz, N. W., & McGhee, P. E. (1986). Temperament and

communicative competence as predictors ofyoung children's humor. Merrill-Palmer Quar-

terly, 52(4), 415^26.

Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140-149.

Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. E, Robinson, D. S., et al. (1993).

How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early

stage breast cancer. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 65(2), 375-390.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. E, & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theo-

retically based approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.

Casadonte, D. (2003). A note on the neuro-mathematics of laughter. Humor: International

Journal ofHumor Research, 16(2), 133-156.

Cashion, J. L., Cody, M. J., & Erickson, K. V. (1986). "You'll love this one . . .": An exploration

into joke-prefacing devices. Journal ofLanguage & Social Psychology, 5(4), 303-3 12.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychomet-

rica, 12, 197-220.

Cattell, R. B., & Luborsky, L. B. (1947). Personality factors in response to humor. Journal of

Abnormal & Social Psychology, 42, 402-421.

Cattell, R. B., & Tollefson, D. L. (1966). The IPAT humor test ofpersonality. Champaign, IL:

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Celso, B. G., Ebener, D. J., & Burkhead, E. J. (2003). Humor coping, health status, and life

satisfaction among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. Aging 6" Mental Health,

7(6), 438-445.

Chafe, W. (1987). Humor as a disabling mechanism. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(1),

16-25.

Chapman, A. J. (1973a). An electromyographic study of apprehension about evaluation. Psy-

chological Reports, 33, 811-814.

REFERENCES

Chapman, A. J. (1973b). Social facilitation of laughter in children. Journal ofExperimental Social

Psychology, 9(6), 528-541.

Chapman, A. J. (1975a). Eye contact, physical proximity and laughter: A re-examination of the

equilibrium model of social intimacy. Social Behavior & Personality, 3(2), 143-155.

Chapman, A. J. (1975b). Humorous laughter in children. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-

chology, 31(1), 42^9.

Chapman, A. J. (1976). Social aspects of humorous laughter. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot

(Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 155-185). London: John

Wiley & Sons.

Chapman, A. J. (1983). Humor and laughter in social interaction and some implications for

humor research. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research,

Vol. 1: Basic issues (pp. 135-157). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1976). Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications.

Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Chapman, A. J., & Gadfield, N. J. (1976). Is sexual humor sexist? Journal of Communication,

25(3), 141-153.

Chapman, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Foot, H. C. (1980). Humour, laughter, and social interaction.

In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 141-179). Chichester:

John Wiley & Sons.

Chapman, A. J., & Wright, D. S. (1976). Social enhancement of laughter: An experimental

analysis of some companion variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21(2),

201-218.

Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior

brand evaluation. Journal ofMarketing Research, 27(4), 466-476.

Check, J. F. (1986). Positive traits of the effective teacher-negative traits of the ineffective one.

Education, 106(3), 326-334.

Chen, G., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Humor styles, coping humor, and mental health amongChinese university students. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research.

Cherkas, L., Hochberg, E, MacGregor, A. J., Snieder, H., & Spector, T. D. (2000). Happy fam-

ilies: A twin study of humour. Twin Research, 3, 17-22.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In

D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in

philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 183-216). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Christie, I. C., & Friedman, B. H. (2004). Autonomic specificity of discrete emotion and dimen-

sions of affective space: A multivariate approach. International Journal of Psychophysiology,

51, 143-153.

Clabby, J. F. (1980). The wit: A personality analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(3),

307-310.

Clark, A., Seidler, A., & Miller, M. (2001). Inverse association between sense of humor and

coronary heart disease. International Journal of Cardiology, 80, 87-88.

Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal ofExperimental

Psychology: General, 113, 121-126.

Clouse, R. W, & Spurgeon, K. L. (1995). Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology: A Journal

ofHuman Behavior, 32(1^), 1-24.

Cogan, R., Cogan, D., Waltz, W, & McCue, M. (1987). Effects of laughter and relaxation on

discomfort thresholds. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 10(2), 139-144.

REFERENCES 3fi

Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the

longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of'Personality & Social Psychology, 75(1),

114-128.

Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the relation-

ship between stress and disorder. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of

psychological stress (pp. 235-283). New York: Wiley.

Collinson, D. L. (1988). "Engineering humour": Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floorrelations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181-199.

Colston, H. L., Giora, R., & Katz, A. (2000). Joke comprehension: Salience and context effects. Paper

presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest.

Consalvo, C. M. (1989). Humor in management: No laughing matter. Humor: International


Conway, M., & Dube, L. (2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening topics: Effectiveness is

a function of audience sex role orientation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7),

863-873.

Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2003). Social exchange theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook ofsocial

psychology (pp. 53-76). New York: Plenum.

Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., & Bedford, A. P. (1998). Personality correlates of alcohol con-

sumption. Personality & Individual Differences, 24, 641-647.

Cornett, C. E. (1986). Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: Phi

Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Corruble, E., Bronnec, M., Falissard, B., & Hardy, P. (2004). Defense styles in depressed suicide

attempters. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 5#(3), 285-288.

Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the functions of humor among the

staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81-95.

Coulson, A. S. (2001). Cognitive synergy. In M. J. Apter (Ed.), Motivational styles in everyday

life:A guide to reversal theory (pp. 229-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in

good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.

Cousins, N. (1976). Anatomy of an illness (as perceived by the patient). New England Journal

ofMedicine, 295, 1458-1463.

Cousins, N. (1979). Anatomy ofan illness as perceived by the patient: Reflections on healing and regen-

eration. New York: W. W. Norton.

Cousins, N. (1985). Therapeutic value of laughter. Integrative Psychiatry, 3(2), 112.

Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of every-

day humorous conduct. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9($-$), 273-

302.

Craik, K. H., & Ware, A. P. (1998). Humor and personality in everyday life. In W. Ruch (Ed.),

The sense ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 63-94). Berlin, Germany:Walter de Gruyter.

Crawford, M. (1989). Humor in conversational context: Beyond biases in the study of genderand humor. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions ofgender (pp. 155-166).

Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

Crawford, M. (1992). Just kidding: Gender and conversational humor. In R. Barreca (Ed.), New

perspectives on -women and comedy (pp. 23-37). Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach.

Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9),

1413-1430.

REFERENCES

Crawford, M., & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring, and context: Women's and men's

accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(2), 217-

231.

Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults' understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Appli-

cations to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213-

262.

Creusere, M. A. (2000). A developmental test of theoretical perspectives on the understandingof verbal irony: Children's recognition of allusion and pragmatic insincerity. Metaphor 6"

Symbol, 1 5(1-2), 29-45.

Culver, J. L., Arena, P. L., Wimberly, S. R., Antoni, M. H., & Carver, C. S. (2004). Coping

among African-American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White women recently treated for

early stage breast cancer. Psychology & Health, 19(2), 157-166.

Cunningham, W. A., & Derks, P. (2005). Humor appreciation and latency of comprehension.Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 18(4), 389-403.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reasoning, and the human brain. New York:

G. P. Putnam.

Damico, S. B., & Purkey, W. W. (1978). Class clowns: A study of middle school students.

American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 391-398.

Daniel, H. J., O'Brien, K. E, McCabe, R. B., & Quinter, V. E. (1985). Values in mate selec-

tion: A 1984 campus survey. College Student Journal, 19(1), 44-50.

Danzer, A., Dale, J. A., & Klions, H. L. (1990). Effect of exposure to humorous stimuli on

induced depression. Psychological Reports, 66(3, Pt 1), 1027-1036.

Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray.

Davidson, I. F. W. K., & Brown, W. I. (1989). Using humour in counselling mentally retarded

clients: A preliminary study. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 12,

93-104.

Davies, A. P., & Apter, M. J. (1980). Humour and its effect on learning in children. In P. E.

McGhee & A.J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 237-253). Chichester: John Wiley& Sons.

Davies, C. (1990a). Ethnic humor around the world: A comparative analysis. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.

Davies, C. (1990b). An explanation ofJewish jokes about Jewish women. Humor: International

Journal ofHumor Research, 3, 363-378.

Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional analysis of a personality-based test

of creative potential. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 12(1), 37-43.

Davis, J. M., & Farina, A. (1970). Humor appreciation as social communication. Journal ofPer-

sonality & Social Psychology, 15(2), 175-178.

Day, H. I., & Langevin, R. (1969). Curiosity and intelligence: Two necessary conditions for a

high level of creativity. Journal ofSpecial Education, 3, 263-268.

de Groot, A., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Understanding versus

discriminating nonliteral utterances: Evidence for a dissociation. Metaphor 6" Symbol, 10(4),

255-273.

de Koning, E., & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The Relational Humor Inventory: Functions of humorin close relationships. American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 30(1), 1-18.

Deal, T. E. D., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals ofcorporate life.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deaner, S. L., & McConatha, J. T. (1993). The relationship of humor to depression and per-

sonality. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 1), 755-763.

REFERENCES

Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior &Personality, 15(2), 225-232.

Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor, and

perceived leader effectiveness. Journal ofManagerial Issues, 13(4), 450^465.

Deckers, L. (1993). On the validity of a weight-judging paradigm for the study of humor.

Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 6(1), 43-56.

Deckers, L. (1998). Influence of mood on humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense ofhumor: Explo-

rations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 309-328). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Deckers, L., & Buttram, R. T. (1990). Humor as a response to incongruities within or between

schemata. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 3(1), 53-64.

Deckers, L., & Carr, D. E. (1986). Cartoons varying in low-level pain ratings, not aggression

ratings, correlate positively with funniness ratings. Motivation & Emotion, 10(3), 207-216.

Deckers, L., & Edington, J. (1979). Facial expressions ofmirth as a log-logJunction of the degree of

incongruity in a psychophysical task. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Asso-

ciation Convention, Chicago.

Deckers, L., Edington, J., & VanCleave, G. (1981). Mirth as a function of incongruities in

judged and unjudged dimensions of psychophysical tasks. Journal of General Psychology,

/05(Pt 2), 225-233.

Deckers, L., & Hricik, D. (1984). Orienting and humor responses: A synthesis. Motivation &Emotion, 8(3), 183-204.

Deckers, L., Jenkins, S., & Gladfelter, E. (1977). Incongruity versus tension relief: Hypothe-ses of humor. Motivation 6" Emotion, 1, 261-272.

Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1974). A note on weight discrepancy and humor. Journal of Psychol-

ogy, 86(2), 309-312.

Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1975). Humor and the incongruity hypothesis. Journal of Psychology,

90(2), 215-218.

Deckers, L., Pell, C., & Lundahl, B. (1990). Smile amplitude or duration as an indicator ofhumor?

Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago.

Deckers, L., & Ruch, W. (1992 a). Sensation seeking and the Situational Humour Response

Questionnaire (SHRQ): Its relationship in American and German samples. Personality &Individual Differences, 13(9), 1051-1054.

Deckers, L., & Ruch, W. (1992b). The Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (SHRQ)as a test of "sense of humour": A validity study in the field of humour appreciation. Per-

sonality & Individual Differences, 13(10), 1149-1152.

Deckers, L., & Salais, D. (1983). Humor as a negatively accelerated function of the degree of

incongruity. Motivation & Emotion, 7(4), 357-363.

Deffenbacher, J. L., Deitz, S. R., & Hazaleus, S. L. (1981). Effects of humor and test anxiety

on performance, worry, and emotionality in naturally occurring exams. Cognitive Therapy

6- Research, 5(2), 225-228.

Deinzer, R., Kleineidam, C., Stiller-Winkler, R., Idel, H., & Bachg, D. (2000). Prolongedreduction of salivary immunoglobulin A (slgA) after major academic exam. International

Journal of Psychophysiology, 37(3), 219-232.

DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjective

well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 141-144.

Derks, P. (1987). Humor production: An examination of three models of creativity. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 21, 325-326.

Derks, P., & Arora, S. (1993). Sex and salience in the appreciation of cartoon humor. Humor:


REFERENCES

Derks, P., & Berkowitz, J. (1989). Some determinants of attitudes toward a joker. Humor: Inter-

national Journal ofHumor Research, 2(4), 385-396.

Derks, P., Gardner, J. B., & Agarwal, R. (1998). Recall of innocent and tendentious humorous

material. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 11(1), 5-19.

Derks, P., Gillikin, L. S., Bartolome-Rull, D. S., & Bogart, E. H. (1997). Laughter and elec-

troencephalographic activity. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 10(3), 285-

300.

Derks, P., & Hervas, D. (1988). Creativity in humor production: Quantity and quality in diver-

gent thinking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(1), 37-39.

Derks, P., Kalland, S., & Etgen, M. (1995). The effect of joke type and audience response on

the reaction to a joker: Replication and extension. Humor: International Journal ofHumor

Research, 5(4), 327-337.

Derks, P., Staley, R. E., & Haselton, M. G. (1998). "Sense" of humor: Perception, intelligence,

or expertise? In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations ofa personality characteris-

tic (pp. 143-158). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1998, x, 498.

Dewitte, S., & Verguts, T. (2001). Being funny: A selectionist account of humor production.Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 14(1), 37-53.

Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of

irony. Discourse Processes, 19(3), 347-367.

Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan,}., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., et al. (1996). Children's

understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child Development, 67(6),

3071-3085.

Dienstbier, R. A. (1995). The impact of humor on energy, tension, task choices, and attribu-

tions: Exploring hypotheses from toughness theory. Motivation & Emotion, 19(4), 255-

267.

Dillon, K. M., Minchoff, B., & Baker, K. H. (1985). Positive emotional states and enhance-

ment of the immune system. International Journal ofPsychiatry in Medicine, /5(1), 13-18.

Dillon, K. M., & Totten, M. C. (1989). Psychological factors, immunocompetence, and health

of breast-feeding mothers and their infants. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150(2), 155-

162.

Dixon, N. E (1980). Humor: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spiel-

berger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 281-289). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

D'Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E. N., Eaves, L. J., Corey, L. A., Berg, K., Solaas, M. H., et al.

(2003). The role of the Children of Twins design in elucidating causal relations between

parent characteristics and child outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology 6" Psychiatry, 44(8),

1130-1144.

Donoghue, E. E., McCarrey, M. W, & Clement, R. (1983). Humour appreciation as a func-

tion of canned laughter, a mirthful companion, and field dependence: Facilitation and

inhibitory effects. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 15(1), 150-162.

Doris, J., & Fierman, E. (1956). Humor and anxiety. Journal ofAbnormal fc Social Psychology,

53, 59-62.

Doris, P. (2004). The humor styles questionnaire: Investigating the role of humor in psychological

well-being. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London,Ontario.

Dorz, S., Novara, C., Sica, C., & Sanavio, E. (2003). Predicting burnout among HIV/AIDSand oncology health care workers. Psychology & Health, 18(5), 677-684.

du Pre, A. (1998). Humor and the healing arts: A multimethod analysis ofhumor use in health care.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

REFERENCES

Duchowny, M. S. (1983). Pathological disorders of laughter. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.

Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook ofhumor research, Vol. 2: Applied studies (pp. 89-108). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution oflanguage. London: Faber and Faber.

Duncan, C. P., & Nelson, J. E. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experiment.

Journal ofAdvertising, 14(1), 33-40.

Duncan, C. P., Nelson, J. E., & Frontzak, N. L. (1984). The effect of humor on advertising

comprehension. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 432-437).

Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.

Duncan, W. J., & Feisal, J. P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace.

Organizational Dynamics, .77(4), 18-30.

Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of jokingbehavior to management. Journal ofManagement, 16(2), 255-278.

Dworkin, E. S., & Efran, J. S. (1967). The angered: Their susceptibility to varieties of humor.

Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 6(2), 233-236.

Dwyer, T. (1991). Humor, power, and change in organizations. Human Relations, 44(1), 1-19.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is

good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereo-

type. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Eastman, M. (1936). Enjoyment oflaughter. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expres-

sion and brain physiology: II. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 58(1), 342-353.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Ellis, A. (1977). Fun as psychotherapy. Rational Living, 12(1), 2-6.

Ellis, A., & Grieger, R. (1986). Handbook of rational-emotive therapy. New York: Springer.

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science,

196(4286), 129-136.

Epstein, S., & Smith, R. (1956). Repression and insight as related to reaction to cartoons.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 391-395.

Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1993). Conversational discourse. In J. B. Gleason & N. B. Ratner (Eds.),

Psycholinguistics (pp. 237-270). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Esler, M. D. (1998). Mental stress, panic disorder and the heart. Stress Medicine, 14(4), 237-

243.

Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: an experimental and theoretical study.

British Journal ofPsychology, 32, 295-309.

Eysenck, H. J. (1943). An experimental analysis of five tests of "appreciation of humor." Edu-

cational & Psychological Measurement, 3, 191-214.

Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Foreword. InJ. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of

humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. xii-xvii). New York: Academic Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford.

Fabrizi, M. S., & Pollio, H. R. (1987a). Are funny teenagers creative? Psychological Reports, 61(3),

751-761.

Fabrizi, M. S., & Pollio, H. R. (1987b). A naturalistic study of humorous activity in a third,

seventh, and eleventh grade classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(1), 107-128.

Fagen, R. (1981). Animal play behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

Farrelly, E, & Brandsma, J. (1974). Provocative therapy. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

REFERENCES

Farrelly, E, & Lynch, M. (1987). Humor in provocative therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh

(Eds.), Handbook ofhumor andpsychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use ofhumor (pp. 8 1-106).

Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Feingold, A. (1981). Testing equity as an explanation for romantic couples "mismatched" on

physical attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 49(1), 247-250.

Feingold, A. (1982). Measuring humor: A pilot study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54(3, Pt 1),

986.

Feingold, A. (1983). Measuring humor ability: Revision and construct validation of the Humor

Perceptiveness Test. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55(1), 159-166.

Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental

investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139.

Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1991). Psychometric intelligence and verbal humor ability. Per-

sonality 6" Individual Differences, 12(5), 427-435.

Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1993). Preliminary validation of a multidimensional model of

wittiness. Journal ofPersonality, 61($), 439-456.

Felmlee, D. H. (1995). Fatal attractions: Affection and disaffection in intimate relationships.

Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 12(2), 295-3 11.

Ferris, D. R. (1972). Humor and creativity: Research and theory. Journal of Creative Behavior,

6, 75-79.

Fine, G. A. (1977). Humour in situ: The role of humour in small group culture. In A. J.

Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a fanny thing, humour (pp. 315-318). Oxford: Perga-mon Press.

Fisher, S., & Fisher, R. L. (1981). Pretend the 'world is funny and forever: A psychological analysis

ofcomedians, clowns, and actors. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flugel, J. C. (1954). Humor and laughter. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology.

Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fogel, A., Dickson, K. L., Hsu, H.-C., Messinger, D., Nelson-Goens, G. C., & Nwokah,E. E. (1997). Communication of smiling and laughter in mother-infant play: Research on

emotion from a dynamic systems perspective. In K. C. Barrett (Ed.), The communication of

emotion: Current researchfrom diverse perspectives (pp. 5-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foley, E., Matheis, R., & Schaefer, C. (2002). Effect of forced laughter on mood. Psychological

Reports, 90(1), 184.

Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity.

Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 5(1-2), 45-68.

Forabosco, G. (1994). "Seriality" and appreciation of jokes. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 7(4), 351-375.

Forabosco, G. (1998). The ill side of humor: Pathological conditions and sense of humor. In

W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 271-292).

Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Forabosco, G., & Ruch, W. (1994). Sensation seeking, social attitudes and humor appreciationin Italy. Personality <t? Individual Differences, 75(4), 515-528.

Ford, C. V, & Spaulding, R. C. (1973). The Pueblo incident: A comparison of factors related

to coping with extreme stress. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29(3), 340-343.

Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1094-1107.

Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prej-

udiced norm theory. Personality 6" Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79-94.

REFERENCES

Ford, T. E., Ferguson, M. A., Brooks, J. L., & Hagadone, K. M. (2004). Coping sense ofhumorreduces effects of stereotype threat on women's math performance. Personality & Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 30(5), 643-653.

Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on per-

ceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6),

677-691.

Forester, J. (2004). Responding to critical moments with humor, recognition, and hope. Nego-tiation Journal, 20(2), 221-237.

Fortson, S. B., & Brown, W. E. (1998). Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of

graduate students. College Student Journal, 32(4), 572-576.

Foster, J. A., & Reid, J. (1983). Humor and its relationship to students' assessments of the coun-

sellor. Canadian Counsellor, 17(3), 124-129.

Foster, P. S., Webster, D. G., & Williamson, J. (2002). The psychophysiological differentiation

of actual, imagined, and recollected mirth. Imagination, Cognition 6" Personality, 22(2),

163-180.

Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial

encounters. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 61-78.

Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the best mediation: Humor as emotion management in inter-

action. Symbolic Interaction, 17(2), 147-163.

Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1993). Not all smiles are created equal: The differences between

enjoyment and nonenjoyment smiles. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 6(\),

9-26.

Frankl, V. E. (1960). Paradoxical intention: A logotherapeutic technique. American Journal of

Psychotherapy, 14, 520-535.

Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man's search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.

Franzini, L. R. (2000). Humor in behavior therapy. Behavior Therapist, 23(2), 25-29, 41.

Franzini, L. R. (2001). Humor in therapy: The case for training therapists in its uses and risks.

Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 170-193.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3),

300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 55(3), 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention

and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the car-

diovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition 6" Emotion, 12(2), 191-220.

Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect

of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237-258.

Freiheit, S. R., Overholser, J. C., & Lehnert, K. L. (1998). The association between humor and

depression in adolescent psychiatric inpatients and high school students. Journal ofAdoles-

cent Research, 13(1), 32-48.

Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal ofPsychoanalysis, 9, 1-6.

Freud, S. (1935). A general introduction to psycho-analysis. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Freud, S. (1960 [1905]). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: Norton.

Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. A. (in press). Humor styles

and personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of HumorResearch.

REFERENCES

Fridlund, A. J., & Loftis, J. M. (1990). Relations between tickling and humorous laughter: Pre-

liminary support for the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis. Biological Psychology, 30(2), 141-150.

Fried, I., Wilson, C. L., MacDonald, K. A., & Behnke, E. J. (1998). Electric current stimulates

laughter. Nature, 391(66-68), 650.

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., et al. (1993). Does child-

hood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality 6" Social Psychology, 65(1),

176-185.

Fry, D. P. (2005). Rough-and-tumble social play in humans. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith

(Eds.), The nature ofplay: Great apes and humans (pp. 5485). New York: Guilford Press.

Fry, P. S. (1995). Perfectionism, humor, and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and

determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology

Monographs, 121(2), 211-245.

Fry, W. F. (1963). Sweet madness: A study ofhumor. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.

Fry, W. F. (1994). The biology of humor. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 7(2),

111-126.

Fry, W. E, & Rader, C. (1977). The respiratory components of mirthful laughter. Journal of

Biological Psychology, 19(2), 39-50.

Fry, W. E, & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook ofhumor and psychotherapy: Advances in

the clinical use ofhumor. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Fry, W. E, & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1993). Advances in humor and psychotherapy. Sarasota, FL:

Professional Resource Press.

Fuhr, M. (2001). Some aspects of form and function of humor in adolescence. Humor: Inter-


Fiihr, M. (2002). Coping humor in early adolescence. Humor: International Journal ofHumor

Research, -75(3), 283-304.

Fuller, R. G., & Sheehy-Skeffington, A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses to

humorous material: A replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35(1, Pt 2), 531-534.

Gallivan, J. (1992). Group differences in appreciation of feminist humor. Humor: International


Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empirical findings

and directions for further research. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 12(3),

301-314.

Gamble, J. (2001). Humor in apes. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2),

163-179.

Garner, B. P. (1998). Play development from birth to age four. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Playfrom birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (pp. 1 3 7-145).

New York: Garland.

Gavanski, I. (1986). Differential sensitivity of humor ratings and mirth responses to cognitive

and affective components of the humor response. Journal ofPersonality 6" Social Psychology,

51(1), 209-214.

Gelb, B. D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1986). Humor and advertising effectiveness after repeated

exposures to a radio commerical. Journal ofAdvertising, 15(2), 15-20.

Gelkopf, M., & Kreitler, S. (1996). Is humor only fun, an alternative cure or magic: The

cognitive therapeutic potential of humor. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(\), 235-

254.

Gelkopf, M., Kreitler, S., & Sigal, M. (1993). Laughter in a psychiatric ward: Somatic, emo-

tional, social, and clinical influences on schizophrenic patients. Journal ofNervous & Mental

Disease, 181(5), 283-289.

REFERENCES

Gelkopf, M., & Sigal, M. (1995). It is not enough to have them laugh: Hostility, anger, and

humor-coping in schizophrenic patients. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research,

8(3), 273-284.

Gerber, W. S., & Routh, D. K. (1975). Humor response as related to violation of expectancies

and to stimulus intensity in a weight-judgment task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 41(2),

673-674.

Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: Asynthetic approach. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80(4), 395-430.

Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 115,3-15.

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics ofmind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, D. E. (1994). Humor consulting: Laughs for power and profit in organizations. Humor:


Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.).


Gillikin, L. S., & Derks, P. L. (1991). Humor appreciation and mood in stroke patients. Cog-nitive Rehabilitation, 9(5), 30-35.

Giora, R. (1985). A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics, 12,

115-135.

Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal ofPragmatics, 16, 465-485.

Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239-264.

Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor:

International Journal ofHumor Research, /2(4), 425-436.

Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation.

Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83-101.

Godkewitsch, M. (1974). Correlates ofhumor: Verbal and nonverbal aesthetic reactions as func-

tions of semantic distance within adjective-noun pairs. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in

the new experimental aesthetics: Steps towards an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation

(pp. 279-304). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour. In A. J.

Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications

(pp. 117-138). London: John Wiley & Sons.

Goel, V, & Dolan, R. J. (2001). The functional anatomy of humor: Segregating cognitive and

affective components. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 237-238.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor

Books.

Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, K. A., & Lemery, K. S. (1997). Toddler and childhood temperament:

Expanded content, stronger genetic evidence, new evidence for the importance of envi-

ronment. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 891-905.

Goldsmith, H. H., Lemery, K. S., Buss, K. A., & Campos, J. J. (1999). Genetic analyses of focal

aspects of infant temperament. Developmental Psychology, 55(4), 972-985.

Goldstein, J. H. (1982). A laugh a day: Can mirth keep disease at bay? The Sciences, 22(6),

21-25.

Goldstein, J. H., Harman, J., McGhee, P. E., & Karasik, R. (1975). Test of an information-

processing model of humor: Physiological response changes during problem- and

riddle-solving. Journal of General Psychology, 92(1}, 59-68.

Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). (1972). The psychology ofhumor: Theoretical perspectives

and empirical issues. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

REFERENCES

Goldstein, J. H., Suls, J. M., & Anthony, S. (1972). Enjoyment of specific types of humorcontent: Motivation or salience? In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychol-

ogy ofhumor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 1 59-1 7 1). New York: Academic

Press.

Gollob, H. E, & Levine, J. (1967). Distraction as a factor in the enjoyment of aggressive humor.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 5(3), 368-372.

Goodenough, E L. (1932). Expression of the emotions in a blind-deaf child. Journal ofAbnor-

mal & Social Psychology, 27, 328-333.

Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really verysimilar? Sex Roles, 25(9-10), 501-513.

Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationships partners: Across-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 737(4), 579-581.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student

learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40-53.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the

classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39(1), 46-62.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital

interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting & Clinical

Psychology, 61(1), 6-15.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between maritalprocesses and marital

outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and

stability from newlywed interactions. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). Rebound from marital conflict and divorce pre-

diction. Family Process, 38, 287-292.

Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Graeven, D. B., & Morris, S. J. (1975). College humor in 1930 and 1972: An investigation

using the humor diary. Sociology & Social Research, 5P(4), 406-410.

Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversa-

tion: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56(2), 161-

183.

Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex

encounters. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 74(4), 209-236.

Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.),

The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 243-247). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men's and

women's reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 341-350.

Gregory,}. C. (1924). The nature oflaughter. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace.

Greig, J. Y. T. (1923). The psychology oflaughter and comedy. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Groch, A. S. (1974). Generality of response to humor and wit in cartoons, jokes, stories, and

photographs. Psychological Reports, 35, 835-838.

Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. E (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology:

Science & Practice, 2(2), 151-164.

Grotjahn, M. (1966). Beyond laughter: Humor and the subconscious. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Grotjahn, M. (1971). Laughter in group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psy-

chotherapy, 21(2), 234-238.

REFERENCES

Grugulis, I. (2002). Nothing serious? Candidates' use of humour in management training.

Human Relations, 55(4), 387-406.

Gruner, C. R. (1967). Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal

of Communication, 17(3), 228-233.

Gruner, C. R. (1976). Wit and humour in mass communication. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.

Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 287-311). London:

John Wiley & Sons.

Gruner, C. R. (1978). Understanding laughter: The workings ofwit and humor. Chicago: Nelson-

Hall.

Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game ofhumor:A comprehensive theory ofwhy we laugh. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Grziwok, R., & Scodel, A. (1956). Some psychological correlates of humor preferences. Journal

of Consulting Psychology, 20, 42.

Haellstroem, T., & Noppa, H. (1981). Obesity in women in relation to mental illness, social

factors and personality traits. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 25, 75-82.

Haig, R. A. (1988). The anatomy ofhumor: Biopsy'chosocial and therapeutic perspectives. Springfield,

IL, England: Charles C Thomas, Publisher.

Hall, G. S., & Allin, A. (1897). The psychology of tickling, laughing, and the comic. American

Journal ofPsychology, 9(1), 1-44.

Hammes, J. A., & Wiggins, S. L. (1962). Manifest anxiety and appreciation of humor involv-

ing emotional content. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 14, 291-294.

Hampes, W. P. (1992). Relation between intimacy and humor. Psychological Reports, 71(1),

127-130.

Hampes, W. P. (1994). Relation between intimacy and the Multidimensional Sense of HumorScale. Psychological Reports, 74(3, Pt 2), 1360-1362.

Hampes, W. P. (1999). The relationship between humor and trust. Humor: InternationalJournal


Hampes, W. P. (2001). Relation between humor and empathic concern. Psychological Reports,

88(1), 241-244.

Happe, E, Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (1999). Acquired "theory of mind" impairments fol-

lowing stroke. Cognition, 70(3), 2 1 1-240.

Harris, C. R. (1999). The mystery of ticklish laughter. American Scientist, 87(4), 344-351.

Harris, C. R., & Alvarado, N. (2005). Facial expressions, smile types, and self-report during

humour, tickle, and pain. Cognition & Emotion, 19(5), 655-669.

Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1997). Humour, tickle, and the Darwin-Hecker Hypothe-sis. Cognition 6" Emotion, 11(1), 103-110.

Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1999). Can a machine tickle? Psychonomic Bulletin 6" Review,

6(3), 504-510.

Harrison, L. K., Carroll, D., Burns, V. E., Corkill, A. R., Harrison, C. M., Ring, C., et al.

(2000). Cardiovascular and secretory immunoglobin A reactions to humorous, exciting,

and didactic film presentations. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 113-126.

Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and

ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505-526.

Hauck, W. E., & Thomas, J. W. (1972). The relationship of humor to intelligence, creativity,

and intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 40(4), 52-

55.

Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal ofPrag-

matics, 32(6), 709-742.

REFERENCES

Hayashi, K., Hayashi, T., Iwanaga, S., Kawai, K., Ishii, H., Shoji, S. I., et al. (2003). Laughterlowered the increase in postpriandal blood glucose. Diabetes Care, 26(5), 1651-1652.

Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System). Psychological Review,

62, 243-254.

Hehl, F.-J., & Ruch, W. (1985). The location of sense of humor within comprehensive per-

sonality spaces: An exploratory study. Personality & Individual Differences, 6(6), 703-715.

Hehl, F.-J., & Ruch, W. (1990). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: III. The

prediction of appreciation of incongruity resolution based humour by content saturated

attitude scales in five samples. Personality & Individual Differences, 11(5), 439-445.

Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A., & Russ, G. S. (1994). Gender-related jokes in the workplace: Sexual

humor or sexual harassment? Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 24(12), 1 1 14-1 128.

Henkin, B., & Fish, J. M. (1986). Gender and personality differences in the appreciation of

cartoon humor. Journal of Psychology, 120(2), 157-175.

Henman, L. D. (2001). Humor as a coping mechanism: Lessons from POWs. Humor: Inter-


Herzog, T. R., & Bush, B. A. (1994). The prediction of preference for sick humor. Humor:


Herzog, T. R., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Preferences for sick versus nonsick humor. Humor: Inter-


Herzog, T. R., & Larwin, D. A. (1988). The appreciation of humor in captioned cartoons.

Journal of Psychology, 122(6), 597-607.

Hickson, J. (1977). Differential responses of male and female counselor trainees to humorstimuli. Southern Journal ofEducational Research, 11(1), 1-8.

Hillson, T. R., & Martin, R. A. (1994). What's so funny about that?: The domains-interaction

approach as a model of incongruity and resolution in humor. Motivation & Emotion, 18(1),

1-29.

Hobden, K. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). From jest to antipathy: Disparagement humor as a

source of dissonance-motivated attitude change. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 15(3),

239-249.

Holland, N. N. (1982). Laughing: A psychology ofhumor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Holmes, D. S. (1969). Sensing humor: Latency and amplitude of response related to MMPIprofiles. Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 296-301.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002a). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to work-

place culture. Journal ofPragmatics, 34(12), 1683-1710.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002b). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and

friends. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, /5(1), 65-87.

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,

247(4865), 540-545.

Hubert, W., & de Jong-Meyer, R. (1990). Psychophysiological response patterns to positive

and negative film stimuli. Biological Psychology, 31, 73-93.

Hubert, W., & deJong-Meyer, R. (1991). Autonomic, neuroendocrine, and subjective responsesto emotion-inducing film stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 131-140.

Hubert, W., Moeller, M., & de Jong-Meyer, R. (1993). Film-induced amusement changes in

saliva cortisol levels. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 18(4), 265-272.

laffaldano, M. T, & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.

Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),

Handbook ofemotions (pp. 261-277). New York: Guilford.

REFERENCES

Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive affect as a source of human strength. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M.

Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future direc-

tions for a positive psychology (pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1206-1217.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative

problem solving. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 1 122-1 131.

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of posi-

tive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 48, 1413-1426.

Itami, J., Nobori, M., & Texhima, H. (1994). Laughter and immunity. Japanese Journal ofPsy-

chosomatic Medicine, 34, 565-571.

Iwase, M., Ouchi, Y, Okada, H., Yokoyama, C., Nobezawa, S., Yoshikawa, E., et al. (2002).

Neural substrates of human facial expression of pleasant emotion induced by comic films:

A PET study. Neurolmage, 17, 758-768.

Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressures: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule

of others. Personality fc Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 474-485.

Janus, S. S. (1975). The great comedians: Personality and other factors. American Journal ofPsy-

choanalysis, 35(1), 169-174.

Janus, S. S., Bess, B. E., & Janus, B. R. (1978). The great comediennes: Personality and other

factors. American Journal ofPsychoanalysis, 38(4), 367-372.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural

language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and

research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.

Johnson, A. K., & Anderson, E. A. (1990). Stress and arousal. In J. T. Cacioppo & L. G.

Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology: Physical, social, and inferential elements

(pp. 216-252). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, H. A. (1990). Humor as an innovative method for teaching sensitive topics. Educa-

tional Gerontology, 16(6), 547-559.

Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). First steps in the emergence of verbal humor: A case

study. Infant Behavior & Development, 20(1), 187-196.

Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Jones, J. A. (2005). The masking effects of humor on audience perception of message organi-

zation. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 18(4), 405-417.

Jones, J. M., & Harris, P. E. (1971). Psychophysiological correlates of cartoon humor appreci-

ation. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6,

381-382.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job

performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,

727(3), 376-407.

Kallen, H. M. (1968). Liberty, laughter and tears: Reflection on the relations ofcomedy and tragedy

to human freedom. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

Kamei, T, Kumano, H., & Masumura, S. (1997). Changes of immunoregulatory cells associ-

ated with psychological stress and humor. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 84(1, Pt 2), 1296-1298.

Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a tool of social interaction. In A. J.

Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a fanny thing, humour (pp. 13-16). Oxford: PergamonPress.

REFERENCES

Kantor, M. (1992). The human dimension of depression: A practical guide to diagnosis, understand-

ing, and treatment. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, R. M., & Pascoe, G. C. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples:

Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1),

61-65.

Kataria, M. (2002). Laugh for no reason (2nd ed.). Mumbai, India: Madhuri International.

Katz, A. N., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2004). Saying what you don't mean: Social

influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5),

186-189.

Katz, B. F. (1993). A neural resolution of the incongruity-resolution and incongruity theories

of humour. Connection Science, 5(1), 59-75.

Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Humor styles, personality, and well-being amongLebanese university students. European Journal ofPersonality, 18(3), 209-219.

Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Humor styles, culture-related personality, well-being,

and family adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research.

Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). Early conceptions of humor: Varieties and issues. In J. H. Goldstein

& P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology ofhumor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues

(pp. 3-39). New York: Academic Press.

Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communi-

cation Education, 57(3), 198-207.

Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution theory in social interaction. In E. E.Jones, D. E. Kanouse &H. H. Kelley (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown,

NJ: General Learning Press.

Kellogg, R. T. (1995). Cognitive psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kelly, W. E. (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of humor. Journal ofPsychology, 136(6),

657-666.

Keltner, D., & Bonanno, G. A. (1997). A study of laughter and dissociation: Distinct correlates

of laughter and smiling during bereavement. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 75(4),

687-702.

Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: Aconceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229-248.

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in

hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5),

1231-1247.

Kennedy, S., Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. (1990). Psychoneuroimmunology. In J. T.

Cacioppo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Principles ofpsychophysiology: Physical, social, and infer-

ential elements (pp. 177-190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D. T. (1955). The contingency of humor appreciation on the stimulus-confirmation of

joke-ending expectations. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 644-648.

Kenrick, D. T, Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the

stages of the parental investment model. Journal ofPersonality, 58, 97-117.

Kerkkanen, P., Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor, physical health, and

well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police officers. Humor: Inter-

national Journal ofHumor Research, 17(1-2), 21-35.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychologi-

cal Bulletin, 127(4), 472-503.

REFERENCES

Killinger, B. (1987). Humor in psychotherapy: A shift to a new perspective. In W. F. Fry &W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use ofhumor (pp. 2 1-40). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Kimata, H. (2001). Effect of humor on allergen-induced wheal reactions. JAMA: Journal ofthe

American Medical Association, 285(6), 737.

Kimata, H. (2004a). Differential effects of laughter on allergen-specific immunoglobulin and

neurotrophin levels in tears. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98(3, Pt 1), 901-908.

Kimata, H. (2004b). Effect of viewing a humorous vs. nonhumorous film on bronchial respon-siveness in patients with bronchial asthma. Physiology & Behavior, 81(4), 681-684.

Kintsch, W., & Bates, E. (1977). Recognition memory for statements from a classroom lecture.

Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 150-159.

Kipper, S., & Todt, D. (2001). Variation of sound parameters affects the evaluation of human

laughter. Behaviour, 138(9), 1161-1178.

Kipper, S., & Todt, D. (2003a). Dynamic-acoustic variation causes differences in evaluations of

laughter. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 96(3), 799-809.

Kipper, S., & Tbdt, D. (2003b). The Role of Rhythm and Pitch in the Evaluation of Human

Laughter. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 27(4), 255-272.

Kirsh, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2003). Positive and negative aspects of sense of humor: Associ-

ations with the constructs of individualism and relatedness. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 16(1), 33-62.

Klein, A. J. (1985). Humor comprehension and humor appreciation of cognitively oriented

humor: A study of kindergarten children. Child Study Journal, ^5(4), 223-235.

Klein, D. M., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1982). Relationship between humor in introductorytextbooks and students' evaluations of the texts' appeal and effectiveness. Psychological

Reports, 50(1), 235-241.

Kline, P. (1977). The psychoanalytic theory of humour and laughter. In A. J. Chapman &H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 7-12). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Knox, I. (1951). Towards a philosophy of humor. Journal ofPhilosophy, 48, 541-548.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act ofcreation. London: Hutchinson.

Kohler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in current sense of humor inventories:

How much substance, how much method variance? Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor

Research, P(3/4), 363-397.

Koppel, M. A., & Sechrest, L. (1970). A multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of sense of

humor. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 77-85.

Korb, L. J. (1988). Humor: A tool for the psychoanalyst. Issues in Ego Psychology, 11(2), 45-54.

Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (1994). Extraversion and emotionality as proposed superordi-

nate stress moderators: A prospective analysis. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 16(5),

787-792.

Kowalski, R. M., Howerton, E., & McKenzie, M. (2001). Permitted disrespect: Teasing in inter-

personal interactions. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in inter-

personal relationships (pp. 177-202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kubie, L. S. (1970). The destructive potential of humor in psychotherapy. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 127(7), 861-866.

Kuhlman, T. L. (1984). Humor and psychotherapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin DorseyProfessional Books.

Kuhlman, T. L. (1985). A study of salience and motivational theories of humor. Journal ofPer-

sonality 6- Social Psychology, 49(1), 281-286.

REFERENCES

Kuiper, N. A., & Borowicz-Sibenik, M. (2005). A good sense of humor doesn't always help:

Agency and communion as moderators of psychological well-being. Personality 6" Individ-

ual Differences, 38(2), 365-377.

Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. A. (2004). Humor is not always the best

medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor:

International Journal ofHumor Research, 17(1-2), 135-168.

Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: International Journal


Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998a). Is sense of humor a positive personality characteristic?

In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 1 59-1 78).


Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998b). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to positive

and negative affect. Motivation & Emotion, 22(2), 133-153.

Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Dance, K. A. (1992). Sense of humour and enhanced quality

of life. Personality & Individual Differences, 13(12), 1273-1283.

Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and cognitive

appraisals. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 25(1), 81-96.

Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., Olinger, L. J., Kazarian, S. S., & Jette, J. L. (1998). Sense of

humor, self-concept, and psychological well-being in psychiatric inpatients. Humor: Inter-


Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual

differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality & Indi-

vidual Differences, 19(3), 359-372.

Kuiper, N. A., & Nicholl, S. (2004). Thoughts of feeling better? Sense of humor and physical

health. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 17(1-2), 37-66.

Kuiper, N. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1998). Humor and mental health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),

Encyclopedia ofmental health (Vol. 2, pp. 445^-57). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kush, J. C. (1997). Relationship between humor appreciation and counselor self-perceptions.

Counseling & Values, 42(1), 22-29.

Kushner, M. (1990). The light touch: How to use humor for business success. In. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

La Fave, L. (1972). Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification

classes. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology ofhumor: Theoretical per-

spectives and empirical issues (pp. 195-210). New York: Academic Press.

La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and

perceived incongruity humour theory. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humorand laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 63-91). London: John Wiley &Sons.

La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Marshall, N. (1974). Humor judgments as a function of identifica-

tion classes. Sociology & Social Research, 58(2), 184-194.

La Gaipa, J. J. (1977). The effects of humour on the flow of social conversation. In A. J.


Labott, S. M., Ahleman, S., Wolever, M. E., & Martin, R. B. (1990). The physiological and

psychological effects of the expression and inhibition of emotion. Behavioral Medicine,

16(4), 182-189.

Labott, S. M., & Martin, R. B. (1987). The stress-moderating effects of weeping and humor.

Journal ofHuman Stress, 13(4), 159-164.

REFERENCES

Labott, S. M., & Martin, R. B. (1990). Emotional coping, age, and physical disorder. Behav-

ioral Medicine, 16(2), 53-61.

Lamb, C. W. (1968). Personality correlates ofhumor enjoyment following motivational arousal.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 9(3), 237-241.

Lambert, R. B., & Lambert, N. K. (1995). The effects of humor on secretory Immunoglobu-lin A levels in school-aged children. Pediatric Nursing, 21, 16-19.

Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring paradigms: The study of gender and

sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:

Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 23 1-270). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Landis, C., & Ross, J. W. H. (1933). Humor and its relation to other personality traits. Journal

of Social Psychology, 4, 156-175.

Landy, D., & Mettee, D. (1969). Evaluation of an aggressor as a function of exposure to cartoon

humor. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 12(1), 66-71.

Langevin, R., & Day, H. I. (1972). Physiological correlates of humor. In J. H. Goldstein &P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues


Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of

stability and satisfaction. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 31(3),

189-195.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4),

352-367.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Leacock, S. B. (1935). Humor: Its theory and technique. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Leak, G. K. (1974). Effects of hostility arousal and aggressive humor on catharsis and humor

preference. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30(6), 736-740.

Leber, D. A., & Vanoli, E. G. (2001). Therapeutic use of humor: Occupational therapy clini-

cians' perceptions and practices. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(2), 221-226.

LeDoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion-specific physiological activity: Don't forget about CNS physi-

ology. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions

(pp. 248-251). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology ofliving buoyantly. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Prkachin, K. M., & Mills, D. E. (1997). Humor as a stress mod-

erator in the prediction of blood pressure obtained during five stressful tasks. Journal of

Research in Personality, 31(4), 523-542.

Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., & Phillips, M. (1997). Who likes "Far Side"

humor? Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 10(4), 439-452.

Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K. M., & Mills, D. E.

(1995). Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of Social &Clinical Psychology, 14(4), 373-391.

Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson-Katz, K., & Kueneman, K. (1990). Humor and immune-system

functioning. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 3(3), 305-321.

Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor andlife

stress: Antidote to adversity. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Lefort, B. (1992). Structure ofverbal jokes and comprehension in young children. Humor: Inter-

nationalJournal ofHumor Research, 5(1-2), 149-163.

Lehman, K. M., Burke, K. L., Martin, R., Sultan, J., & Czech, D. R. (2001). A reformulation

of the moderating effects of productive humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research, 14(2), 131-161.

REFERENCES

Lemma, A. (1999). Humour on the couch: Exploring humour in psychotherapy and everyday life.

London, England: Whurr Publishers, Ltd.

Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotions: A functional view. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson

(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 123-126). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Leventhal, H., & Patrick-Miller, L. (2000). Emotions and physical illness: Causes and indica-

tors of vulnerability. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook ofemotions (2nd

ed., pp. 523-537). New York: Guilford.

Leventhal, H., & Safer, M. A. (1977). Individual differences, personality, and humour appreci-

ation: Introduction to symposium. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's afunny thing,

humour (pp. 335-349). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Levi, L. (1965). The urinary output of adrenalin and noradrenalin during pleasant and unpleas-

ant emotional states: A preliminary report. Psychosomatic Medicine, 27, 80-85.

Levine, J. (1977). Humour as a form of therapy: Introduction to symposium. In A. J. Chapman& H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 127-137). Oxford: PergamonPress.

Levine, J., & Abelson, R. P. (1959). Humor as a disturbing stimulus. Journal of General Psy-

chology, 60, 191-200.

Levine, J., & Redlich, F. C. (1955). Failure to understand humor. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 24,

560-572.

Levinson, W., Roter, D. L., Mullooly, J. P., Dull, V T., et al. (1997). Physician-patient com-

munication: The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and

surgeons. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(7), 553-559.

Lewis, P. (1997). Debate: Humor and political correctness. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 10(4), 453-513.

Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up: American humor in a time of conflict. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Scambler, D. J. (2000). What do

you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal ofApplied

Developmental Psychology, 2/(4), 403^27.

Lippman, L. G., & Dunn, M. L. (2000). Contextual connections within puns: Effects on per-

ceived humor and memory. Journal of General Psychology, 127(2), 185-197.

Lloyd, E. L. (1938). The respiratory mechanism in laughter. Journal of General Psychology, 19,

179-189.

Loeb, M., & Wood, V. (1986). Epilogue: A nascent idea for an Eriksonian model of humor.

In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging

(pp. 279-284). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Loehlin, J. C., & Nichols, R. C. (1976). Heredity, environment, and personality. Austin, TX: Uni-

versity of Texas Press.

Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse

Processes, 11(1), 35-60.

Losco, J., & Epstein, S. (1975). Humor preference as a subtle measure of attitudes toward the

same and the opposite sex. Journal ofPersonality, 43(2), 321-334.

Lourey, E., & McLachlan, A. (2003). Elements of sensation seeking and their relationship with

two aspects of humour appreciation-perceived funniness and overt expression. Personality

6- Individual Differences, 35(2), 277-287.

Love, A. M., & Deckers, L. H. (1989). Humor appreciation as a function of sexual, aggressive,

and sexist content. Sex Roles, 20(11-12), 649-654.

REFERENCES 35

Lowe, G., Britton, R., Carpenter, E., Castle, H., Clayton, C., Hulme, C., et al. (1997). Social

drinking and laughter. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 684.

Lowe, G., & Taylor, S. B. (1993). Relationship between laughter and weekly alcohol con-

sumption. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 2), 1210.

Luborsky, L. B., & Cattell, R. B. (1947). The validation of personality factors in humor. Journal

ofPersonality, 15, 283-291.

Ludovici, A. M. (1933). The secret oflaughter. New York: Viking Press.

Lundy, D. E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The

importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Per-

sonal Relationships, 5(3), 311-325.

Lyons, V, & Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Humor in autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal ofAutism

& Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 521-531.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics train-

ing. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-216.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does

happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.

MacDonald, N. E., & Silverman, I. W. (1978). Smiling and laughter in infants as a func-

tion of level of arousal and cognitive evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 235-

241.

Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect

in persuasion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 27-40.

MacLean, P. D. (1987). The midline frontolimbic cortex and the evolution of crying and laugh-

ter. In E. Perecman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 121-140). New York, NY: IRBNPress.

Madanes, C. (1987). Humor in strategic family therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.),

Handbook ofhumor andpsychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use ofhumor (pp. 241-264). Sara-

sota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1982). The effects of humor on attention in magazine

advertising. Journal ofAdvertising, 11(3), 8-14.

Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories ofpersonality: Contemporary approaches to the science ofpersonality.

New York: Wiley.

Mahony, D. L., Burroughs, W. J., & Hieatt, A. C. (2001). The effects of laughter on discom-

fort thresholds: Does expectation become reality? Journal of General Psychology, 128(2),

217-226.

Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Bush, J. E. (1997). Telling jokes that disparage social groups:

Effects on the joke teller's stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(22),

1986-2000.

Mandler, J. M. (1979). Categorical and schematic organization in memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.),

Memory organization and structure (pp. 259-299). New York: Academic Press.

Manke, B. (1998). Genetic and environmental contributions to children's interpersonal humor.

In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 361-384).


Manne, S., Sherman, M., Ross, S., Ostroff, J., Heyman, R. E., & Fox, K. (2004). Couples'

support-related communication, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction

among women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology,

72(4), 660-670.

Mannell, R. C., & McMahon, L. (1982). Humor as play: Its relationship to psychological well-

being during the course of a day. Leisure Sciences, 5(2), 143-155.

REFERENCES

Marci, C. D., Moran, E. K., & Orr, S. P. (2004). Physiologic evidence for the interpersonal

role of laughter during psychotherapy. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 192(10),

689-695.

Marcus, N. N. (1990). Treating those who fail to take themselves seriously: Pathological aspects

of humor. American Journal ofPsychotherapy, 44(3), 423-432.

Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37(3), 407-422.

Martens, W. H. J. (2004). Therapeutic use of humor in antisocial personalities. Journal ofCon-

temporary Psychotherapy, 34(4), 351-361.

Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the paradoxes of

organizational life. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 32(2), 147-170.

Martin, G. N., & Gray, C. D. (1996). The effects of audience laughter on men's and women's

responses to humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(2), 221-231.

Martin, L. R., Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Criqui, M. H., & Schwartz,

J. E. (2002). A life course perspective on childhood cheerfulness and its relation to mor-

tality risk. Personality fc Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1 155-1 165.

Martin, R. A. (1984). Telic dominance, humor, stress, and moods. Paper presented at the Interna-

tional Symposium on Reversal Theory, Gregynog, Wales.

Martin, R. A. (1989). Humor and the mastery of living: Using humor to cope with the daily

stresses of growing up. In P. E. McGhee (Ed.), Humor and children's development: A guide

to practical applications (pp. 135-154). New York: Haworth Press.

Martin, R. A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and CopingHumor Scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor

Research, 9(3^), 251-272.

Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.),

The sense of humor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 15-60). Berlin, Germany:Walter de Gruyter.

Martin, R. A. (2000). Humor and laughter. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology

(Vol. 4, pp. 202-204). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research

findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504-519.

Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the best medicine? Humor, laughter, and physical health.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 216-220.

Martin, R. A. (2003). Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological

assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 313-326). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Martin, R. A., Campbell, L., & Ward, J. R. (2006). Observed humor styles, relationship quality,

and problem resolution in a conflict discussion between dating couples. Paper presentedat the annual conference of the International Society for Humor Studies, Copenhagen,Denmark.

Martin, R. A., & Dobbin, J. P. (1988). Sense of humor, hassles, and immunoglobulin A: Evi-

dence for a stress-moderating effect of humor. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medi-

cine, 18(2), 93-105.

Martin, R. A., & Dutrizac, G. (2004). Humor styles, social skills, and quality of interactions with

close others: A prospective daily diary study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

International Society for Humor Studies, Dijon, France.

Martin, R. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (1999). Daily occurrence of laughter: Relationships with age,

gender, and Type A personality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12(4),

355-384.

REFERENCES 4(

Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dance, K. A. (1993). Humor, coping with stress,

self-concept, and psychological well-being. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research,

5(1), 89-104.

Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dobbin, J. P. (1987). Is stress always bad? Telic

versus paratelic dominance as a stress moderating variable. Journal ofPersonality and Social

Psychology, 53, 970-982.

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense ofhumor as a moderator of the relation between

stressors and moods. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 45(6), 1313-1324.

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational Humor Response Questionnaire: Quan-titative measure of sense of humor. Journal of Personality ti Social Psychology, 47(1), 145-

155.

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences

in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the

Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 37(1), 48-75.

Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein &P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues


Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

Masselos, G. (2003). "When I play funny it makes me laugh": Implications for early child-

hood educators in developing humor through play. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Play and edu-

cational theory and practice (pp. 213-226). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood

Publishing.

Masten, A. S. (1986). Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Development, 51(2),

461-473.

May, R. (1953). Man's search for himself. New York: Random House.

Mayne, T. J. (2001). Emotions and health. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions:

Current issues andfuture directions (pp. 361-397). New York: Guilford.

McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Fullerton, C. S. (1993). Handling bodies

after violent death: Strategies for coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2),

209-214.

McCauley, C., Woods, K., Coolidge, C., & Kulick, W. (1983). More aggressive cartoons are

funnier. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 44(4), 817-823.

McClelland, D. C., & Cheriff, A. D. (1997). The immunoenhancing effects of humor on secre-

tory IgA and resistance to respiratory infections. Psychology & Health, /2(3), 329-344.

McComas, H. C. (1923). The origin of laughter. Psychological Review, 30, 45-56.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its appli-

cations. Journal ofPersonality, 60(2), 175-215.

McDougall, W. (1903). The theory of laughter. Nature, 67, 318-319.

McDougall, W. (1922). Why do we laugh? Scribners, 71, 359-363.

McGhee, P. E. (197 la). Cognitive development and children's comprehension of humor. Child

Development, 42(1), 123-138.

McGhee, P. E. (1971b). The role of operational thinking in children's comprehension and

appreciation of humor. Child Development, 42(3), 733-744.

McGhee, P. E. (1972). On the cognitive origins of incongruity humor: Fantasy assimilation

versus reality assimilation. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of

humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 61-80). New York: Academic Press.

McGhee, P. E. (1974). Cognitive mastery and children's humor. Psychological Bulletin, #7(10),

721-730.

REFERENCES

McGhee, P. E. (1976). Children's appreciation of humor: A test of the cognitive congruency

principle. Child Development, 47(2), 420-426.

McGhee, P. E. (1980a). Development of the creative aspects of humour. In P. E. McGhee &A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 119-139). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

McGhee, P. E. (1980b). Development of the sense of humour in childhood: A longitudinal

study. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 213-236). Chi-

chester: John Wiley & Sons.

McGhee, P. E. (1983 a). Humor development: Toward a life span approach. In P. E. McGhee

&J. H.Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook ofhumor research, Vol. 1 : Basic issues (Vol. l,pp. 109-134).

New York: Springer-Verlag.

McGhee, P. E. (1983b). The role of arousal and hemispheric lateralization in humor. In P. E.

McGhee &J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook ofhumor research, Vol. 1 : Basic issues (pp. 13-37).


McGhee, P. E. (1999). Health, healing and the amuse system: Humor as survival training (3rd ed.).

Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

McGhee, P. E. (Ed.). (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: W. H.

Freeman.

McGhee, P. E., Bell, N. J., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Generational differences in humor and cor-

relates of humor development. In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E.

McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging (pp. 253-263). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1983). Children's appreciation of humor victimizing different

racial-ethnic groups: Racial-ethnic differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(1),

29-40.

McGhee, P. E., & Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook ofhumor research (Vols. 1 and 2).


McGhee, P. E., & Lloyd, S. A. (1981). A developmental test of the disposition theory of humor.

Child Development, 52(3), 925-931.

McGhee, P. E., & Lloyd, S. A. (1982). Behavioral characteristics associated with the develop-ment of humor in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141(2), 253-259.

McGhee, P. E., Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1990). A personality-based model of humor develop-ment during adulthood. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 3(2), 1 19-146.

McMorris, R. F, Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J. (1997). Humor in educational testing:

A review and discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(3), 269-297.

McMorris, R. F, Urbach, S. L., & Connor, M. C. (1985). Effects of incorporating humor in

test items. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 22(2), 147-155.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,

220-232.

Megdell, J. I. (1984). Relationship between counselor-initiated humor and client's self-perceived

attraction in the counseling interview. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,

27(4), 517-523.

Mendez, M. E, Nakawatase, T. V, & Brown, C. V (1999). Involuntary laughter and inappro-

priate hilarity. Journal ofNeuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 11(2), 253-258.

Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., & Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and lia-

bility. Journal of Social Psychology, #5(1), 51-64.

Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western

Journal of Communication, 61(2), 1 88-208.

Meyer, M., Zysset, S., von Cramon, D. Y, & Alter, K. (2005). Distinct fMRI responses to laugh-

ter, speech, and sounds along the human peri-sylvian cortex. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(2),

291-306.

REFERENCES 4(

Middleton, R. (1959). Negro and white reactions to racial humor. Sociometry, 22, 175-183.

Miller, G. F. (1997). Protean primates: The evolution of adaptive unpredictability in competi-tion and courtship. In A. Whiten & R. W. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Exten-

sions and evaluations (pp. 312-340). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature.

New York: Doubleday.

Mindess, H. (1971). Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing.

Mindess, H. (1976). The use and abuse of humour in psychotherapy. In A. J. Chapman &H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 331-341).

London: John Wiley & Sons.

Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-system theory. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.),

Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). Humor, language, and metaphor. Metaphor fc Symbolic

Activity, 6(2), 87-102.

Mittwoch-Jaffe, T, Shalit, E, Srendi, B., & Yehuda, S. (1995). Modification of cytokine secre-

tion following mild emotional stimuli. NeuroReport, 6, 789-792.

Mobbs, D., Greicius, M. D., Abdel-Azim, E., Menon, V, & Reiss, A. L. (2003). Humor mod-

ulates the mesolimbic reward centers. Neuron, 40, 1041-1048.

Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Azim, E., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Personality predicts

activity in reward and emotional regions associated with humor. Proceedings ofthe National

Academy of Sciences, 102(45), 16502-16506.

Moody, R. A. (1978). Laugh after laugh: The healing power of humor. Jacksonville, FL:

Headwaters Press.

Moore, T. E., Griffiths, K., & Payne, B. (1987). Gender, attitudes towards women, and the

appreciation of sexist humor. Sex Roles, 16(9-10), 521-531.

Moran, C., & Massam, M. (1997). An evaluation of humour in emergency work. Australasian

Journal ofDisaster and Trauma Studies, 1(3).

Moran, C. C. (1996). Short-term mood change, perceived funniness, and the effect of humor

stimuli. Behavioral Medicine, 22(1), 32-38.

Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 4(1-4),

359-373.

Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy oflaughter and humor. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Morse, S., & Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self.

Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-156.

Mowrer, D. E. (1994). A case study of perceptual and acoustic features of an infant's first laugh

utterances. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 7(2), 139-155.

Mowrer, D. E., LaPointe, L. L., & Case, J. (1987). Analysis of five acoustic correlates of laugh-

ter. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 11(3), 191-199.

Mueller, C. W, & Donnerstein, E. (1983). Film-induced arousal and aggressive behavior.

Journal of Social Psychology, 119(1), 61-67.

Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. New York: Basil

Blackwell.

Mulkay, M., Clark, C., & Pinch, T. (1993). Laughter and the profit motive: The use of humor

in a photographic shop. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 163-

193.

Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 57-70.

REFERENCES

Murgatroyd, S., Rushton, C., Apter, M., & Ray, C. (1978). The development of the Telic Dom-inance Scale. Journal of'Personality Assessment, 42(5), 519-528.

Murstein, B. L, & Brust, R. G. (1985). Humor and interpersonal attraction. Journal ofPerson-

ality Assessment, 49(6), 637-640.

Nerhardt, G. (1970). Humor and inclination to laugh: Emotional reactions to stimuli of dif-

ferent divergence from a range of expectancy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, //(3),

185-195.

Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J.



Nerhardt, G. (1977). Operationalization of incongruity in humour research: A critique and sug-

gestions. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 47-51).

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Neuhoff, C. C., & Schaefer, C. (2002). Effects of laughing, smiling, and howling on mood. Psy-

chological Reports, 91(3, Pt 2), 1079-1080.

Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers' humor in the

classroom and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom humor.

Communication Education, 40(4), 343-355.

Nevo, O., Aharonson, H., & Klingman, A. (1998). The development and evaluation of a

systematic program for improving sense of humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of

humor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 385-404). Berlin, Germany: Walter de

Gruyter.

Nevo, O., Keinan, G., & Teshimovsky-Arditi, M. (1993). Humor and pain tolerance. Humor:


Nevo, O., & Nevo, B. (1983). What do you do when asked to answer humorously? Journal of

Personality fc Social Psychology, 44(1), 188-194.

Newman, M. G., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Does humor moderate the effects of experimentally-induced stress? Annals ofBehavioral Medicine, 18(2), 101-109.

Newton, G. R., & Dowd, E. T. (1990). Effect of client sense of humor and paradoxical inter-

ventions on test anxiety. Journal of Counseling 6" Development, 68(6), 668-672.

Nezlek, J. B., & Derks, P. (2001). Use of humor as a coping mechanism, psychological adjust-

ment, and social interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(4),

395^13.

Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & Blissett, S. E. (1988). Sense of humor as a moderator of the rela-

tion between stressful events and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 54(3), 520-525.

Nias, D. K. (1981). Humour and personality. In R. Lynn (Ed.), Dimensions ofpersonality: Papers

in honour ofH. J. Eysenck (pp. 287-313). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Nias, D. K., & Wilson, G. D. (1977). A genetic analysis of humour preferences. In A. J.


Niethammer, T. (1983). Does man possess a laughter center? Laughing gas used in a new

approach. New Ideas in Psychology, 1(1), 67-69.

Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of 20th-century American humor. Phoenix,

AZ: Oryx Press.

Njus, D. M., Nitschke, W., & Bryant, F. B. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and the mod-

erating effect of writing on slgA antibody levels. Psychology 6" Health, 12(1), 135-148.

Norrick, N. R. (1984). Stock conversational witticisms. Journal ofPragmatics, 8, 195-209.

REFERENCES

Norrick, N. R. (1986). A frame-theoretical analysis of verbal humor. Semiotica, 60, 225-245.

Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversationaljoking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal ofPragmatics, 35(9), 1333-1359.

Nwokah, E. E., Davies, P., Islam, A., Hsu, H.-C., & Fogel, A. (1993). Vocal affect in three-

year-olds: A quantitative acoustic analysis of child laughter. Journal of the Acoustical Society

ofAmerica, 94(6), 3076-3090.

Nwokah, E. E., & Fogel, A. (1993). Laughter in mother-infant emotional communication.


Nwokah, E. E., Hsu, H.-C., Davies, P., & Fogel, A. (1999). The integration of laughter and

speech in vocal communication: A dynamic systems perspective. Journal of Speech, Lan-

guage, fc Hearing Research, 42(4), 880-894.

Nwokah, E. E., Hsu, H.-C., Dobrowolska, O., & Fogel, A. (1994). The development of laugh-ter in mother-infant communication: Timing parameters and temporal sequences. Infant

Behavior & Development, 17(1), 23-35.

Obrdlik, A. (1942). Gallows humor: A sociological phenomenon. American Journal ofSociology,

47, 709-716.

O'Connell, W. E. (1960). The adaptive functions ofwit and humor. Journal ofAbnormal fy Social

Psychology, 61, 263-270.

O'Connell, W. E. (1969). The social aspects ofwit and humor. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 79(2),

183-187.

O'Connell, W. E. (1976). Freudian humour: The eupsychia of everyday life. In A. J. Chapman& H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 313-329).London: John Wiley & Sons.

O'Connell, W. E. (1981). Natural high therapy. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Handbook of innovative

psychotherapies (pp. 554-568). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

O'Connell, W. E. (1987). Natural high theory and practice: The humorist's game of games. In

W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the

clinical use ofhumor (pp. 55-79). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Odell, M. (1996). The silliness factor: Breaking up repetitive and unproductive conflict pat-

terns with couples and families. Journal ofFamily Psychotherapy, 7(3), 69-75.

Olson, H. A. (1994). The use ofhumor in psychotherapy. In H. S. Strean (Ed.), The use ofhumor

in psychotherapy (pp. 195-198). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Olson, J. M., Maio, G. R., & Hobden, K. L. (1999). The (null) effects of exposure to dispar-

agement humor on stereotypes and attitudes. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research, 12(2), 195-219.

Olson, M. L., Hugelshofer, D. S., Kwon, P., & Reff, R. C. (2005). Rumination and dysphoria:

The buffering role of adaptive forms of humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8),

1419-1428.

Omwake, L. (1939). Factors influencing the sense of humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,

95-104.

O'Neill, R. M., Greenberg, R. P., & Fisher, S. (1992). Humor and anality. Humor: International


Oppliger, P. A. (2003). Humor and learning. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. R. Cantor

(Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor ofDolfZillmann (pp. 255-273). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oppliger, P. A., & Zillmann, D. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to adolescents. Humor:


REFERENCES

O'Quin, K., & Aronoff, J. (1981). Humor as a technique of social influence. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 44(<\\ 349-357.

O'Quin, K., & Derks, P. (1997). Humor and creativity: A review of the empirical literature. In

M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 227-256). Cresskill, NJ: HamptonPress.

Oring, E. (1994). Humor and the suppression of sentiment. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 7(1), 7-26.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement ofmeaning. Urbana,IL: University of Illinois Press.

Overeem, S., Lammers, G. J., & Van Dijk, J. G. (1999). Weak with laughter. Lancet, 354, 838.

Overeem, S., Taal, W., Gezici, E. 6., Lammers, G. J., & Van Dijk, J. G. (2004). Is motor inhi-

bition during laughter due to emotional or respiratory influences? Psychophysiology, 41(2),

254-258.

Overholser, J. C. (1992). Sense of humor when coping with life stress. Personality & Individual

Differences, 13(7), 799-804.

Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2001). The evolution of emotional experience: A "selfish-

gene" account of smiling and laughter in early hominids and humans. In T. J. Mayne &G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Currrent issues and future directions (pp. 152-191). NewYork, NY: Guilford.

Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic com-

munication: The case of laughter. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 183-200.

Palmer, C. T. (1993). Anger, aggression, and humor in Newfoundland floor hockey: An evolu-

tionary analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 19(3), 167-173.

Panksepp, J. (1993). Neurochemical control of moods and emotions: Amino acids to neu-

ropeptides. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook ofemotions (pp. 87-107). NewYork: Guilford.

Panksepp, J. (1994). The clearest physiological distinctions between emotions will be found

among the circuits of the brain. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature ofemotion:

Fundamental questions (pp. 258-260). New York: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. (2000). The riddle of laughter: Neural and psychoevolutionary underpinnings of

joy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 183-186.

Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2000). 50-kHz chirping (laughter?) in response to conditioned

and unconditioned tickle-induced reward in rats: Effects of social housing and genetic vari-

ables. Behavioural Brain Research, 115(1), 25-38.

Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2003). "Laughing" rats and the evolutionary antecedents ofhuman

joy? Physiology & Behavior, 79(3), 533-547.

Park, R. (1977). A study of children's riddles using Piaget-derived definitions. Journal ofGenetic

Psychology, 130(1), 57-67.

Parrott, W. G., & Gleitman, H. (1989). Infants' expectations in play: The joy of peek-a-boo.

Cognition & Emotion, 5(4), 291-311.

Parvizi, J., Anderson, S. W., Martin, C. O., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2001). Patholog-ical laughter and crying: A link to the cerebellum. Brain, 124(9), 1708-1719.

Paskind, H. A. (1932). Effect of laughter on muscle tone. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry,

623-628.

Patton, D., Barnes, G. E., & Murray, R. P. (1993). Personality charactistics of smokers and ex-

smokers. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 653-664.

REFERENCES

Paulos, J. A. (1980). Mathematics and humor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pellegrini, D. S., Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., & Ferrarese, M. J. (1987). Correlates of social

and academic competence in middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry &Allied Disciplines, 28(5), 699-714.

Perera, S., Sabin, E., Nelson, P., & Lowe, D. (1998). Increases in salivary lysozyme and

IgA concentrations and secretory rates independent of salivary flow rates following

viewing of a humorous videotape. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(2),

118-128.

Peterson, J. P., & Pollio, H. R. (1982). Therapeutic effectiveness of differentially targetedhumorous remarks in group psychotherapy. Group, 5(4), 39-50.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Pexman, P. M., & Harris, M. (2003). Children's perceptions of the social functions of verbal

irony. Discourse Processes, 36(3), 147-165.

Pexman, P. M., & Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends? Metaphor 6"

Symbol, 19(2), 143-163.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology

(3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703-732). New York: Wiley.

Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity and resolution in children's humor: A reex-

amination. Child Development, 47(4), 966-971.

Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1977). Measuring effects of incongruity and resolution in

children's humor. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour

(pp. 211-213). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1980). Incongruity humour, play, and self-regulation of arousal

in young children. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 1-26).

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Pierce, R. A. (1994). Use and abuse of laughter in psychotherapy. In H. S. Strean (Ed.), The

use ofhumor in psychotherapy (pp. 105-1 1 1). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Pinderhughes, E. E., & Zigler, E. (1985). Cognitive and motivational determinants of children's

humor responses. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 19(2), 185-196.

Plutchik, R. (1991). Emotions and evolution. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review ofstudies in emotion (pp. 37-58). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons\

Poeck, K. (1985). Pathological laughter and crying. In P. J. Vmken, G. W. Bruyn & H. L.

Klawans (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical neurology (Vol. 45, pp. 219-225). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science Publishers.

Pollio, H. R., & Mers, R. W. (1974). Predictability and the appreciation of comedy. Bulletin ofthe Psychonomic Society, 4(4-A), 229-232.

Pollio, H. R., Mers, R. W, & Lucchesi, W. (1972). Humor, laughter, and smiling: Some pre-

liminary observations of funny behaviors. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The

psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 211-239). New York:

Academic Press.

Porterfield, A. L. (1987). Does sense of humor moderate the impact of life stress on psycho-

logical and physical well-being? Journal ofResearch in Personality, 21(3), 306-317.

Porterfield, A. L., Mayer, F. S., Dougherty, K. G., Kredich, K. E., Kronberg, M. M., Marsee,K. M., et al. (1988). Private self-consciousness, canned laughter, and responses to humor-

ous stimuli. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 22(4), 409-423.

Powell, J. P., & Andresen, L. W. (1985). Humour and teaching in higher education. Studies in

Higher Education, 10(1), 79-90.

REFERENCES

Prasinos, S., & Tittler, B. I. (1981). The family relationships of humor-oriented adolescents.

Journal of Personality, 49(3), 295-305.

Prentice, N. M., & Fathman, R. E. (1975). Joking riddles: A developmental index of children's

humor. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 210-216.

Prerost, F. J. (1977). Environmental conditions affecting the humour response: Developmen-tal trends. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's afunny thing, humour (pp. 439-441).


Prerost, F. J. (1983). Changing patterns in the response to humorous sexual stimuli: Sex roles

and expression of sexuality. Social Behavior & Personality, 11(1), 23-28.

Prerost, F. J. (1984). Reactions to humorous sexual stimuli as a function of sexual activeness

and satisfaction. Psychology: A Journal ofHuman Behavior, 21(1), 23-27.

Prerost, F. J. (1988). Use of humor and guided imagery in therapy to alleviate stress. Journal of

Mental Health Counseling, 10(1), 16-22.

Prerost, F. J. (1993). A strategy to enhance humor production among elderly persons: Assist-

ing in the management of stress. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 17(4), 17-24.

Prerost, F. J., & Brewer, R. E. (1977). Humor content preferences and the relief of experi-

mentally aroused aggression. Journal of Social Psychology, 103(2), 225-231.

Prerost, F. J., & Ruma, C. (1987). Exposure to humorous stimuli as an adjunct to muscle relax-

ation training. Psychology: A Journal ofHuman Behavior, 24(4), 70-74.

Preuschoft, S., & van Hooff, J. A. (1997). The social function of "smile" and "laughter": Vari-

ations across primate species and societies. In U. C. Segerstrale & P. Molnar (Eds.), Non-

verbal communication: Where nature meets culture (pp. 171-190). Hillsdale, NJ, England:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Priest, R. F., & Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness.


Priest, R. F, & Thein, M. T. (2003). Humor appreciation in marriage: Spousal similarity, assor-

tative mating, and disaffection. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16(1),

63-78.

Provine, R. R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and

smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(1), 1-4.

Provine, R. R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of

laughter. Ethology, P5(4), 291-298.

Provine, R. R. (1996). Laughter. American Scientist, 84, 38-45.

Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Penguin.

Provine, R. R. (2004). Laughing, tickling, and the evolution of speech and self. Current Direc-

tions in Psychological Science, 13(6), 215-218.

Provine, R. R., & Fischer, K. R. (1989). Laughing, smiling, and talking: Relation to sleepingand social context in humans. Ethology, 83(4), 295-305.

Provine, R. R., & Yong, Y. L. (1991). Laughter: A stereotyped human vocalization. Ethology,

89(2), 115-124.

Rackl, L. (2003). But seriously folks: Humor can keep you healthy. Reader's Digest (September),62-71.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure andJunction in primitive society: Essays and addresses. NewYork: Free Press.

Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling:The false alarm theory. Medical Hypotheses, 51, 351-354.

Rapp, A. (1951). The origins of -wit and humor. Oxford, England: Dutton.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms ofhumor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

REFERENCES

Redlich, F. C., Levine, J., & Sohler, T. P. (1951). A Mirth Response Test: preliminary reporton a psychodiagnostic technique utilizing dynamics ofhumor. American Journal ofOrthopsy-

chiatry, 21, 717-734.

Reis, H. T. (2001). Relationship experiences and emotional well-being. In C. D. Ryff & B. H.

Singer (Eds.), Emotion, social relationships, and health (pp. 57-86). New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday

experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and

personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richman, J. (1995). The lifesaving function of humor with the depressed and suicidal elderly.

Gerontologist, 35(2), 271-273.

Richman, J. (2003). Therapeutic humor with the depressed and suicidal elderly. In C. E.

Schaefer (Ed.), Play therapy with adults (pp. 166-192). New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons.

Rim, Y. (1988). Sense of humour and coping styles. Personality & Individual Differences, 9(3),

559-564.

Ritchie, G. (1999). Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Paper presented at the AISB

Symposium on Creative Language: Stories and Humour, Edinburgh.

Ritchie, G. (2001). Current directions in computational humour. Artificial Intelligence Review,

16(2), 119-135.

Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis ofjokes. London: Routledge.

Ritchie, G. (in press). Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Humor: International Journal ofHumorResearch.

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review ofNeuro-

science, 27, 169-192.

Robinson, D. T, & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in

task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123-158.

Roeckelein, J. E. (2002). The psychology of humor: A reference guide and annotated bibliography.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Rosenheim, E., & Golan, G. (1986). Patients' reactions to humorous interventions in psy-

chotherapy. American Journal ofPsychotherapy, 40(1), 110-124.

Rosenheim, E., Tecucianu, E, & Dimitrovsky, L. (1989). Schizophrenics' appreciation of

humorous therapeutic interventions. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor Research, 2(2),

141-152.

Rosenwald, G. C. (1964). The relation of drive discharge to the enjoyment of humor. Journal

ofPersonality, 52(4), 682-698.

Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.

Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 37-54). London: John

Wiley & Sons.

Rotton, J. (1992). Trait humor and longevity: Do comics have the last laugh? Health Psychology,

11(4), 262-266.

Rotton, J., & Shats, M. (1996). Effects of state humor, expectancies, and choice on postsurgi-

cal mood and self-medication: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

25(20), 1775-1794.

Rowe, D. C. (1997). Genetics, temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S.

Briggs (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psychology (pp. 367-386). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ruch, W. (1981). Humor and personality: A three-modal analysis. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle

und Diagnostische Psychologic, 2, 253-273.

REFERENCES

Ruch, W. (1983). Humor-Test 3 WD (Forms A, B, and ^.Unpublished manuscript, University

6f Dusseldorf, Germany.

Ruch, W. (1984). Conservatism and the appreciation of humor. Zeitschriftfur Differentielle und

Diagnostische Psychologic, 5, 221-245.

Ruch, W. (1988). Sensation seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of humour:

Stability of findings across four samples. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 9(5), 861-

871.

Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the 3 WD Humor Test.

In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9,

pp. 27-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of

emotions (pp. 605-616). New York, NY: Guilford.

Ruch, W. (1994). Temperament, Eysenck's PEN system, and humor-related traits. Humor:


Ruch, W. (1997). State and trait cheerfulness and the induction of exhilaration: A FAGS study.

European Psychologist, 2(4), 328-341.

Ruch, W. (1998a). Sense of humor: A new look at an old concept. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense

ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 3-14). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Ruch, W. (1998b). The sense ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany:Mouton de Gruyter.

Ruch, W. (1999). The sense of nonsense lies in the nonsense of sense. Comment on Paolillo's

(1998) "Gary Larsen's Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense!" Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 12(1), 71-93.

Ruch, W., Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). Toward an empirical verification of the General

Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 6(2), 123-136.

Ruch, W., Busse, P., & Hehl, F.-J. (1996). Relationship between humor and proposed punish-ment for crimes: Beware of humorous people. Personality & Individual Differences, 20(1),

1-11.

Ruch, W., & Carrell, A. (1998). Trait cheerfulness and the sense of humour. Personality & Indi-

vidual Differences, 24(4), 551-558.

Ruch, W., & Deckers, L. (1993). Do extraverts "like to laugh"? An analysis of the Situational

Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ). European Journal of Personality, 7(4), 211-220.

Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. Kaszniak (Ed.),

Emotion, qualia and consciousness (pp. 426-443). Tokyo: World Scientific.

Ruch, W, & Forabosco, G. (1996). A cross-cultural study of humor appreciation: Italy and

Germany. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 9(1), 1-18.

Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1986a). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: I. A com-

parison of four scales. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 7(1), 1-14.

Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1986b). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: II. Thelocation of sense ofhumour in a comprehensive attitude space. Personality & Individual Dif-

ferences, 7(6), 861-874.

Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1987). Personal values as facilitating and inhibiting factors in the

appreciation of humor content. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2(4), 453-472.

Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1988). Attitudes to sex, sexual behaviour and enjoyment of humour.

Personality fc Individual Differences, 9(6), 983-994.

Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its relation to aes-

thetic appreciation and simplicity-complexity of personality. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense

REFERENCES

ofhumor: Explorations ofa personality characteristic (pp. 109-142). Berlin, Germany: Walter

de Gruyter.

Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & Van Thriel, C. (1996). Assessing the "humorous temperament":Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cherrfulness-

Inventory-STCI. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 9(3-4), 303-339.

Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & van Thriel, C. (1997). To be in good or bad humor: Construction of

the state form of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory-STCI. Personality 6" Individual

Differences, 22(4), 477-491.

Ruch, W., & Kohler, G. (1998). A temperament approach to humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The

sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 203-228). Berlin, Germany:Walter de Gruyter.

Ruch, W, & Kohler, G. (1999). The measurement of state and trait cheerfulness. In I.

Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe

(pp. 67-83). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Ruch, W, McGhee, P. E., & Hehl, F.-J. (1990). Age differences in the enjoyment of

incongruity-resolution and nonsense humor during adulthood. Psychology & Aging, 5(3),

348-355.

Ruch, W, Ott, C., Accoce, J., & Bariaud, F. (1991). Cross-national comparison of humor cat-

egories: France and Germany. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(1-A),

391^14.

Ruch, W, & Proyer, R. T. (in press). Gelatophobia: A distinct and useful new concept? Humor:

International Journal ofHumor Research.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of meaning in memory. In R. C.

Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge

(pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, J. A., Bachorowski, J.-A., & Fernandez-Dols, J. M. (2003). Facial and vocal expressions

of emotion. Annual Review ofPsychology, 54, 329-349.

Rust, J., & Goldstein,}. (1989). Humor in marital adjustment. Humor: International Journal of


Rutherford, K. (1994). Humor in psychotherapy. Individual Psychology, 50(2), 207-222.

Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment of sexist humor, rape attitudes, and rela-

tionship aggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38(9-10), 743-756.

Safranek, R., & Schill, T. (1982). Coping with stress: Does humor help. Psychological Reports,

57(1), 222.

Sala, E, Krupat, E., & Roter, D. (2002). Satisfaction and the use of humor by physicians and

patients. Psychology & Health, 17(3), 269-280.

Salameh, W. A. (1987). Humor in integrative short-term psychotherapy (ISTP). In W. F. Fry& W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook ofhumor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of

humor (pp. 195-240). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Sander, K., & Scheich, H. (2001). Auditory perception of laughing and crying activates

human amygdala regardless of attentional state. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(2), 181-

198.

Sanders, V. M., Iciek, L., & Kasprowicz, D. J. (2000). Psychosocial factors and humoral immu-

nity. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychophys-

iology (2nd ed., pp. 425-455). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson, C. A. (2004). Health psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sanville, J. B. (1999). Humor and play. InJ. W. Barren (Ed.), Humor and psyche: Psychoanalytic

perspectives (pp. 31-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

REFERENCES

Saper, B. (1987). Humor in psychotherapy: Is it good or bad for the client? Professional Psy-

chology: Research & Practice, 18(4), 360-367.

Saper, B. (1995). Joking in the context of political correctness. Humor: International Journal of


Saroglou, V. (2003). Humor appreciation as function of religious dimensions. Archiv fur Reli-

gionpsychologie, 24, 144153.

Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and educational

correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal ofPersonality, 16(1),

43-54.

Sayre, J. (2001). The use of aberrant medical humor by psychiatric unit staff. Issues in Mental

Health Nursing, 22(7), 669-689.

Scambler, D. J., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (1998). Sticks and stones: Evaluations of responses

to childhood teasing. Social Development, 7(2), 234-249.

Schachter, S., & Wheeler, L. (1962). Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement. Journal of

Abnormal & Social Psychology, 65(2), 121-128.

Schaier, A. H., & Cicirelli, V. G. (1976). Age differences in humor comprehension and appre-

ciation in old age. Journal of Gerontology, 31(5), 577-582.

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. New York: Wiley.

Schmidt, S. R. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal ofExperimental Psychol-

ogy: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(4), 953-967.

Schmidt, S. R. (2002). The humour effect: Differential processing and privileged retrieval.

Memory, 10(2), 127-138.

Schmidt, S. R., & Williams, A. R. (2001). Memory for humorous cartoons. Memory & Cogni-

tion, 29(2), 305-311.

Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron, 36(2), 241-263.

Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review,

20(3), 379-403.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Peterson, C. (2003). Positive clinical psychology. In L. G. Aspinwall &U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology ofhuman strengths: Fundamental questions and futuredirectionsfor a positive psychology (pp. 305-317). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssocation.

Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation: A role of the right frontal lobe. Brain,

722(4), 657-666.

Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (2003). The effects of normal aging on humor appreciation. Journal

of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(6), 855-863.

Shapiro, J. P., Baumeister, R. E, & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three-component model of chil-

dren's teasing: Aggression, humor, and ambiguity. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,

70(4), 459-472.

Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use

of scripts in reading. Journal ofMemory and Language, 24, 253-270.

Sher, P. K., & Brown, S. B. (1976). Gelastic epilepsy: Onset in neonatal period. American Journal

of Diseases of Childhood, 130, 1 126-1 131.

Sherman, L. W. (1988). Humor and social distance in elementary school children. Humor: Inter-

national Journal ofHumor Research, 7(4), 389^404.

Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive emotion and the

regulation of interpersonal relationships. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The reg-

ulation ofemotion (pp. 127-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

REFERENCES 41

Shultz, T. R. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children's appreciation of cartoon

humor. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 13(3), 456-477.

Shultz, T. R. (1974a). Development of the appreciation of riddles. Child Development, 45(1),

100-105.

Shultz, T. R. (1974b). Order of cognitive processing in humour appreciation. Canadian Journal

ofPsychology, 28(4), 409-420.

Shultz, T. R. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of humour. In A. J. Chapman &H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11-36).

London: John Wiley & Sons.

Shultz, T. R., & Horibe, F. (1974). Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes. Develop-

mental Psychobiology, 10, 13-20.

Shultz, T. R., & Pilon, R. (1973). Development of the ability to detect linguistic ambiguity.


Shultz, T. R., & Robillard, J. (1980). The development of linguistic humour in children: Incon-

gruity through rule violation. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour

(pp. 59-90). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Shultz, T. R., & Scott, M. B. (1974). The creation of verbal humour. Canadian Journal ofPsy-

chology, 28(4), 421-425.

Shurcliff, A. (1968). Judged humor, arousal, and the relief theory. Journal ofPersonality & Social

Psychology, 5(4), 360-363.

Simon, J. M. (1990). Humor and its relationship to perceived health, life satisfaction, and morale

in older adults. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 11(1), 17-31.

Simons, C. J. R., McCluskey-Fawcett, K. A., & Papini, D. R. (1986). Theoretical and func-

tional perspectives on the development of humor during infancy, childhood, and adoles-

cence. In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and

aging (pp. 53-80). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Singer, D. L. (1968). Aggression arousal, hostile humor, catharsis. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 8(1), 1-14.

Singer, D. L., Gollob, H. E, & Levine, J. (1967). Mobilization of Inhibitions and the enjoy-

ment of aggressive humor. Journal ofPersonality, 55(4), 562-569.

Sinnott, J. D., & Ross, B. M. (1976). Comparison of aggression and incongruity as factors in

children's judgments of humor. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 128(2), 241-249.

Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). "Single white male looking for thin,

very attractive . . ." Sex Roles, 23(11/12), 675-685.

Smith, P. K. (1982). Does play matter? Functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and

human play. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 5(1), 139-184.

Smith, R. E. (1973). The use of humor in the counterconditioning of anger responses: A case

study. Behavior Therapy, 4(4), 576-580.

Smith, R. E., Ascough, J. C., Ettinger, R. E, & Nelson, D. A. (1971). Humor, anxiety, and task

performance. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 19(2), 243-246.

Smoski, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Antiphonal laughter between friends and strangers.

Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 327-340.

Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technique: A sourcebook. Chicago:Aldine.

Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological

challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55(6),

620-625.

REFERENCES

Spencer, G. (1989). An analysis ofJAP-baiting humor on the college campus. Humor: Interna-


Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology of laughter. Macmillan's Magazine, 1, 395-402.

Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention. Journal ofExperimental Psychol-

ogy: General, 113, 130-136.

Spiegel, D., Brodkin, S. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1969). Unacceptable impulses, anxiety and the

appreciation of cartoons. Journal of Protective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 33,

154-159.

Spradley, J. P., & Mann, B. J. (1975). The cocktail waitress: Woman's work in a man's world. NewYork: Wiley.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others:

Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social & Personal

Relationships, 19(4), 463-481.

Sroufe, L. A., & Wunsch, J. P. (1972). The development of laughter in the first year of life.


Stearns, F. R. (1972). Laughing: Physiology, pathophysiology, psychology, pathopsychology, and devel-

opment. Oxford, England: Charles C Thomas.

Stewart, M., & Heredia, R. (2002). Comprehending spoken metaphoric reference: A real-time

analysis. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 49, 34-44.

Stillion, J. M., & White, H. (1987). Feminist humor: Who appreciates it and why? Psychology

of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 219-232.

Stone, A. A., Cox, D. S., Valdimarsdottir, H., Jandorf, L., & Neale, J. M. (1987). Evidence that

secretory IgA antibody is associated with daily mood. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-

chology, 52(5), 988-993.

Strack, E, Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the

human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality6- Social Psychology, 54(5), 768-777.

Strean, H. S. (1994). The use ofhumor in psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Strickland, J. F. (1959). The effect of motivational arousal on humor preferences. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 59, 278-281.

Strother, G. B., Barnett, M. M., & Apostolakos, P. C. (1954). The use of cartoons as a projec-

tive device. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10, 3842.

Struthers, A. (2003). No laughing! Playing with humor in the classroom. In A. J. Klein (Ed.),

Humor in children's lives: A guidebook for practitioners (pp. 85-94). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sullivan, K., Winner, E., & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role

of second-order mental state attributions. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 13(2),

191-204.

Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An informa-

tion-processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology ofhumor:

Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81-100). New York: Academic Press.

Suls, J. M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humour: A theoretical and empir-ical synthesis. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's afunny thing, humour (pp. 41^-5).


Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.

Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1: Basic issues (pp. 39-57). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Sumners, A. D. (1988). Humor: Coping in recovery from addiction. Issues in Mental Health

Nursing, 9, 169-179.

REFERENCES

Surkis, A. A. (1993). Humor in relation to obsessive-compulsive processes. In W. F. Fry &W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Advances in humor and psychotherapy (pp. 121-141). Sarasota, FL:

Professional Resource Press.

Sutton-Smith, B. (2003). Play as a parody of emotional vulnerability. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Playand educational theory and practice (pp. 3-17). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Svebak, S. (1974a). Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor. Scandinavian Journal of Psy-

chology, 75,328-331.

Svebak, S. (1974b). A theory of sense of humor. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 99-

107.

Svebak, S. (1975). Respiratory patterns as predictors of laughter. Psychophysiology, 72(1), 62-65.

Svebak, S. (1977). Some characteristics of resting respiration as predictors of laughter. In A. J.


Svebak, S. (1982). The effect of mirthfulness upon amount of discordant right-left occipital

EEC alpha. Motivation & Emotion, 6(2), 133-147.

Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire: From SHQ to

SHQ-6. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 9(3-4), 341-361.

Svebak, S., & Apter, M. J. (1987). Laughter: An empirical test of some reversal theory hypothe-ses. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 28(3), 189-198.

Svebak, S., Gotestam, K. G., & Jensen, E. N. (2004). The significance of sense of humor, life

regard, and stressors for bodily complaints among high school students. Humor: Interna-

tional Journal ofHumor Research, 17(1-2), 67-83.

Svebak, S., & Martin, R. A. (1997). Humor as a form of coping. In S. Svebak & M. J. Apter

(Eds.), Stress and health:A reversal theory perspective (pp. 173-184). Washington, DC: Taylor& Francis.

Svebak, S., Martin, R. A., & Holmen, J. (2004). The prevalence of sense of humor in a large,

unselected county population in Norway: Relations with age, sex, and some health indi-

cators. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 77(1-2), 121-134.

Szabo, A. (2003). The acute effects of humor and exercise on mood and anxiety. Journal ofLeisure Research, 35(2), 152-162.

Szabo, A., Ainsworth, S. E., & Danks, P. K. (2005). Experimental comparison of the psycho-

logical benefits of aerobic exercise, humor, and music. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 18(3), 235-246.

Talbot, L. A., & Lumden, D. B. (2000). On the association between humor and burnout. Humor:


Tamblyn, D. (2003). Laugh and learn: 95 ways to use humorfor more effective teaching and train-

ing. New York: Amcom.

Tannen, D. (1986). That 's not what I meant. New York: William Morrow.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T, Bouchard, T J., Wilcox, K. J., et al. (1988). Personality similarity

in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(6),

1031-1039.

Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping:

Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55(6), 626-636.

Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From "I" to "we": The role of putdown humor and

identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55-88.

Terry, R. L., & Ertel, S. L. (1974). Exploration of individual differences in preferences for

humor. Psychological Reports, 34(3, Pt 2), 1031-1037.

REFERENCES

Teslow, J. L. (1995). Humor me: A call for research. Educational Technology Research 6" Develop-

ment, 43(3), 6-28.

Teyber, E. (1988). Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: A guide for clinical training. Chicago:

Dorsey Press.

Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 89-100.

Thorson, J. A. (1990). Is propensity to laugh equivalent to sense of humor? Psychological Reports,

55(3, Pt 1), 737-738.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993a). Development and validation of a multidimensional

sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 13-23.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993b). Relationships of death anxiety and sense of humor.

Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 2), 1364-1366.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1994). Depression and sense of humor. Psychological Reports,

75(3, Pt.2), 1473-1474.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1996). Women, aging, and sense of humor. Humor: Interna-


Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological

health and sense of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(6), 605-619.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests ofcreative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Townsend, M. A., & Mahoney, P. (1981). Humor and anxiety: Effects on class test perform-ance. Psychology in the Schools, 18(2), 228-234.

Townsend, M. A., Mahoney, P., & Allen, L. G. (1983). Student perceptions of verbal and

cartoon humor in the test situation. Educational Research Quarterly, 7(4), 17-23.

Trappl, R., Petta, P., & Payr, S. (Eds.). (2002). Emotions in humans and artifacts. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Traylor, G. (1973). Joking in a bush camp. Human Relations, 25(4), 479-486.

Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 25(1), 55-58.

Trice, A. D. (1985). Alleviation of helpless responding by a humorous experience. Psychological

Reports, 57(2), 474.

Trice, A. D., & Price-Greathouse, J. (1986). Joking under the drill: A validity study of the

Coping Humor Scale. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 1(2), 265-266.

Trick, L., & Katz, A. (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relat-

ing individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1,

203-244.

Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The mountain people. New York: Touchstone.

Turner, R. G. (1980). Self-monitoring and humor production. Journal of Personality, 48(2),

163-172.

Uchino, B. N., Kiecolt-Glaser, J., & Glaser, R. (2000). Psychological modulation of

cellular immunity. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook

of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 397^-24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ullian, J. A. (1976). Joking at work. Journal of Communication, 25(3), 129-133.

Ullmann, L. P., & Lim, D. T. (1962). Case history material as a source of the identification of

patterns of response to emotional stimuli in a study of humor. Journal of Consulting Psy-

chology, 25(3), 221-225.

Vaid, J. (1999). The evolution of humor: Do those who laugh last? In D. H. Rosen & M. C.

Luebbert (Eds.), Evolution of the psyche (pp. 123-138). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/

Greenwood Publishing.

REFERENCES

Vaid, J. (2002). Humor and laughter. In V S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the humanbrain (Vol. 2, pp. 505-516). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Vaid, J., Hull, R., Heredia, R., Gerkens, D., & Martinez, F. (2003). Getting a joke: Thetime course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 55(9), 1431-

1449.

Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology.American Psychologist, 55(1), 89-98.

Van Giffen, K. (1990). Influence of professor gender and perceived use of humor on course

evaluations. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 3(1), 65-73.

van Hooff, J. A. (1972). A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In

R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication. Oxford, England: Cambridge U. Press.

van Hooff, J. A., & Preuschoft, S. (2003). Laughter and smiling: The intertwining of nature

and culture. In F. B. M. de Waal & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal social complexity: Intelligence,

culture, and individualized societies (pp. 260-287). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

van Wormer, K., & Boes, M. (1997). Humor in the emergency room: A social work perspec-tive. Health & Social Work, 22(2), 87-92.

Vasey, G. (1877). The philosophy oflaughter and smiling (2nd. ed.). London: J. Burns.

Ventis, W. L. (1973). Case history: The use of laughter as an alternative response in system-atic desensitization. Behavior Therapy, 4(1), 120-122.

Ventis, W. L., Higbee, G., & Murdock, S. A. (2001). Using humor in systematic desensitiza-

tion to reduce fear. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 241-253.

Vettin, J., & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation: Features of occurrence and acoustic

structure. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 28(2), 93-115.

Vilaythong, A. P., Arnau, R. C., Rosen, D. H., & Mascaro, N. (2003). Humor and hope: Canhumor increase hope? Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 16(i), 79-89.

Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Group Behav-

ior, 20(2), 151-166.

Wakshlag, J. J., Day, K. D., & Zillmann, D. (1981). Selective exposure to educational televi-

sion programs as a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal ofEducational

Psychology, 73(1), 27-32.

Walle, A. H. (1976). Getting picked up without being put down: Jokes and the bar rush. Journal

of the Folklore Institute, 13,201-217.

Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of

instructor humor and student's reports of learning. Communication Education, 48(1), 48-62.

Wapner, W., Hamby, S., & Gardner, H. (1981). The role of the right hemisphere in the appre-hension of complex linguistic materials. Brain 6" Language, 14(1), 15-33.

Ward, J. R. (2004). Humor and its association with friendship quality. Unpublished Masters thesis,

University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Warm, T. R. (1997). The role of teasing in development and vice versa. Journal ofDevelopmental6- Behavioral Pediatrics, 18(2), 97-101.

Warners-Kleverlaan, N., Oppenheimer, L., & Sherman, L. (1996). To be or not to be humor-

ous: Does it make a difference? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(2),

117-141.

Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the

central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.

Watson, K. K., Matthews, B. J., & Allman, J. M. (in press). Brain activation during sight gagsand language-dependent humor. Cerebral Cortex.

REFERENCES

Weaver,}., & Zillmann, D. (1994). Effect of humor and tragedy on discomfort tolerance. Per-

ceptual 6- Motor Skills, 78(2), 632-634.

Weaver, J., Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Effects of humorous distortions on children's

learning from educational television: Further evidence. Communication Education, 57(3),

181-187.

Weaver, J. B., Masland, J. L., Kharazmi, S., & Zillmann, D. (1985). Effect of alcoholic intoxi-

cation on the appreciation of different types of humor. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psy-

chology, 49(3), 781-787.

Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease

message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal

ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 5-15.

Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review.

Journal ofAdvertising, 21(4), 35-59.

Weisenberg, M., Raz, T., & Hener, T. (1998). The influence of film-induced mood on pain

perception. Pain, 76(3), 365-375.

Weisenberg, M., Tepper, L, & Schwarzwald, J. (1995). Humor as a cognitive technique for

increasing pain tolerance. Pain, 63(2), 207-212.

Weisfeld, G. E. (1993). The adaptive value ofhumor and laughter. Ethology fc Sociobiology, 14(2),

141-169.

White, S., & Camarena, P. (1989). Laughter as a stress reducer in small groups. Humor: Inter-


White, S., & Winzelberg, A. (1992). Laughter and stress. Humor: InternationalJournal ofHumor

Research, 5(4), 343-355.

Whitney, L, & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in

junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25.

Whitt, J. K., & Prentice, N. M. (1977). Cognitive processes in the development of children's

enjoyment and comprehension of joking riddles. Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 129-136.

Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Wicker, E W. (1985). A rhetorical look at humor as creativity. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 19(3),

175-184.

Wicker, E W, Barren, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980). Disparagement humor: Dispositions and

resolutions. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 39(4), 701-709.

Wicker, E W, Thorelli, I. M., Barren, W. L., & Ponder, M. R. (1981). Relationships amongaffective and cognitive factors in humor. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 15(3), 359-370.

Wild, B., Rodden, E A., Grodd, W, & Ruch, W. (2003). Neural correlates of laughter and

humour. Brain, 126(10), 2121-2138.

Williams, R. B., Haney, T. L., Lee, K. L., Kong, Y. H., Blumenthal, J. A., & Whalen, R. E.

(1980). Type A behavior, hostility, and coronary atherosclerosis. Psychosomatic Medicine,

42(6), 539-549.

Wilson, D. W, & Molleston, J. L. (1981). Effects of sex and type of humor on humor appre-ciation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(1), 90-96.

Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1969). Conservatism as a predictor of humor preferences.

Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 271-274.

Wilson, G. D., Rust, J., & Kasriel, J. (1977). Genetic and family origins of humor preferences:

A twin study. Psychological Reports, 41(2), 659-660.

Wilson, W. (1975). Sex differences in response to obscenities and bawdy humor. Psychological

Reports, 37(3, Pt 2), 1074.

REFERENCES

Winner, E., & Leekam, S. (1991). Distinguishing irony from deception: Understanding the

speaker's second-order intention. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 257-

270.

Winner, E., Windmueller, G., Rosenblatt, E., Bosco, L., Best, E., & Gardner, H. (1987).

Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity, 2(1), 13-

32.

Witztum, E., Briskin, S., & Lerner, V. (1999). The use of humor with chronic schizophrenic

patients. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 29(3), 223-234.

Wolfenstein, M. (1954). Children's humor: A psychological analysis. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. (1934). The psychology of humor. Journal ofAbnor-

mal & Social Psychology, 28, 341-365.

Wyer, R. S. (2004). Social comprehension andjudgment: The role ofsituation models, narratives, and

implicit theories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99(4),

663-688.

Yalisove, D. (1978). The effect of riddle structure on children's comprehension of riddles. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 14(2), 173-180.

Yarnold, J. K., & Berkeley, M. H. (1954). An analysis of the Cattell-Luborsky Humor Test into

homogeneous scales. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 49, 543-546.

Yip, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social com-

petence. Journal ofResearch in Personality.

Yoshino, S., Fujimori, J., & Kohda, M. (1996). Effects of mirthful laughter on neuroendocrine

and immune systems in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [letter]. Journal of Rheumatol-

ogy, 23, 793-794.

Yovetich, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. (1990). Benefits of humor in reduction of threat-

induced anxiety. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 51-58.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the Management Prac-

tices Survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223-237).

West Orange, NJ.: Leadership Library of America.

Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal ofPragmat-

ics, 23(3), 325-339.

Zeilig, G., Drubach, D. A., Katz-Zeilig, M., & Karatinos, J. (1996). Pathological laughter and

crying in patients with closed traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 10(8), 591-597.

Ziegler, V., Boardman, G., & Thomas, M. D. (1985). Humor, leadership, and school climate.

Clearing House, 58, 346-348.

Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive processes in the development of children's

appreciation of humor. Child Development, 37(3), 507-518.

Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children's humor

appreciation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 5(3), 332-336.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1974). Retaliatory equity as a factor in humor appreciation. Journal

ofExperimental Social Psychology, 10(5), 480-488.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1980). Misattribution theory of tendentious humor. Journal ofExper-imental Social Psychology, 16(2), 146-160.

Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Brutality of assault in political cartoons affect-

ing humor appreciation. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 7(4), 334-345.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a communica-

tion variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 24(2),

191-198.

REFERENCES

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In A. J.



Zillmann, D., et al. (1980). Acquisition of information from educational television programs as

a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2),

170-180.

Zillmann, D., Masland, J. L., Weaver, J. B., Lacey, L. A., Jacobs, N. E., Dow, J. H., et al. (1984).

Effects of humorous distortions on children's learning from educational television. Journal

ofEducational Psychology, 76(5), 802-812.

Zillmann, D., Rockwell, S., Schweitzer, K., & Sundar, S. S. (1993). Does humor facilitate copingwith physical discomfort? Motivation & Emotion, 17(1), 1-21.

Ziv, A. (1976). Facilitating effects ofhumor on creativity. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 68(5),

318-322.

Ziv, A. (1980). Humor and creativity. Creative Child 6- Adult Quarterly, 5(3), 159-170.

Ziv, A. (1981). The self concept of adolescent humorists. Journal ofAdolescence, 4(2), 187-197.

Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense ofhumor. New York: Springer.

Ziv, A. (1988a). Humor's role in married life. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research,

1(3), 223-229.

Ziv, A. (1988b). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of

Experimental Education, 57(1), 5-15.

Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1989). Humor and marital satisfaction. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 129(6),

759-768.

Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1990). The disinhibiting effects of humor: Aggressive and affective

responses. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 3(3), 247-257.

Zwerling, I. (1955). The favorite joke in diagnostic and therapeutic interviewing. Psychoanalytic

Quarterly, 24, 104-114.

Zweyer, K., Velker, B., & Ruch, W (2004). Do cheerfulness, exhilaration, and humor produc-tion moderate pain tolerance? A FACS study. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research, 17(1-2), 85-119.

SUBJECT INDEX

Academic achievement, 262-63, 280, 354-58

Accidental humor. See Unintentional humorAdrenaline. See Catecholamines

Advertising, 103, 105, 136

Aesthetics, 58, 59, 77, 204

Affiliative humor style. See Humor Styles

Questionnaire

Aggressive aspects of humor, 17-18, 43-^44

and bisociation, 64, 75

and coping with stress, 19, 47^-9

and funniness, 49-50

in incongruity theory, 65-66

in psychoanalytic theory, 33, 34

in superiority/disparagement theory, 11-17

Aggressive humor style. See Humor Styles

Questionnaire

Aging and humor, 263-66

Alcohol consumption, 209, 316, 331

Allergies, 320

Amusement. See Funniness of humor; Mirth

Amygdala, 173, 182, 184

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 170

Ankylosing spondylitis, 310

Anti-Semitic humor, 48, 51, 140

Anxiety. See Emotional distress

Anxiety-reduction theory of humor, 36

Ape laughter, 3, 9, 165-68

Aristotle, 22, 44

Arousal boost and arousal jag mechanisms, 58-59, 60

Arousal theories of humor

description, 57-59

empirical investigations, 59-62

evaluation, 57-58

Arousal, physiological, 60-61, 61-62, 76

Art appreciation. See Aesthetics

Artificial intelligence. See Computational approaches to

humorAssociation for Applied and Therapeutic Humor

(AATH), 28, 311,335

Asthma, 320

Attachment, 133, 249, 298, 300

Attitudes, 118, 141-43

Attraction. See Interpersonal attraction

Attributions, 132

Authoritarianism, 203, 205

421

422 SUBJECT INDEX

B

Basal ganglia, 171, 173

Bereavement, 161-62, 290

Biblical references to humor and laughter, 21, 43, 309

Biological psychology, 153-54

Bisociation, 7, 63, 85, 115

Blood pressure, 162, 326-27

Brain basis of humor and laughter, 171-73, 176-85

Brain imaging studies, 171, 181-85

Brain injury, 170, 173, 176-79

Brainstem, 170, 173

Broca's area, 182

Burnout. See Emotional distress

Business. See Work

Cancer, 25, 289-90, 304

Canned jokes. See Jokes

Catecholamines, 59, 60, 162

Celebrity roasts, 43, 125

Cerebellum, 173, 175

Cheerfulness, 214-16, 222, 223, 330

Child development

cognitive development and humor, 238-41

cognitive mastery and humor, 24344

comprehension of incongruity resolution, 67-68,

241-43

comprehension of irony, 245^1-7

conservation and humor, 240, 244, 264

humor comprehension, 23844

play and humor development, 234-38

sense of humor, 225, 252-59

smiling and laughter, 230-34

Chimpanzee laughter. See Ape laughter

Chlorpromazine, 59

Churchill, Winston, 13

Class clowns, 224, 260

Clinical psychology, 269, 310, 336

Close relationships. See also Dating relationships;

Friendship; Marital relationships

and humor, 143^5, 299-303

and mental health, 297-98

Coercion. See Social influence and control

Cognitive appraisals, 19, 282, 285-86

Cognitive congruency hypothesis, 243-44, 264

Cognitive psychology, 83-84

Collative variables, 58-59, 62, 77

Comedians. See Professional humorists

Communication function of humor, 17-19, 114-16,

352, 361-65, 366-67

Comprehension-elaboration theory of humor, 77-78,

87-88

Computational approaches to humor, 105-8

Concentration camps, 19, 288

Concurrent activation theory, 77, 80, 91, 96

Conflict reduction function of humor, 17, 115, 118-19,

119, 145,298Conservatism and humor appreciation, 196, 203, 204

Consultants, humor, 360-61

Conversational humor, 11-15, 97-98

Coping styles, 285-87

Coping with stress. See Stress-moderating effects of

humor

Cortisol, 60, 163

Counseling. See Psychotherapy

Creativity

artistic, 77

effects of humor on, 102-3

relation to humor production ability, 218

relation to sense of humor, 101-2, 262, 263

Crying, 170, 184

DDarwin-Hecker Hypothesis, 174-75

Dating relationships, 134, 144, 145-46, 299, 300

Defense mechanisms, 33, 35, 42, 49, 277, 347

Definition of humor, 5

Dementia, 169

Depression. See Emotional distress

Development of humor. See Child development

Developmental psychology, 229-30

Diabetes, 320-21

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), 42

Diagnostic uses of humor, 37, 195, 342-43

Diminishment, 77, 79

Disabling mechanism, 164, 188

Disparagement humor, 45, 121, See also Hostile humor;

Teasing

dispositional model, 52

effects on attitudes toward target, 141, 142

effects on tolerance of discrimination, 142-43

enjoyment and attitudes toward target, 51-53,

140-41

in teaching, 358

misattribution theory, 53

Doctor-patient relationship, 345^-6

SUBJECT INDEX 42;

Double entendres, 13, 117

Duchenne display, 160-62, 171, 175, 215, 270, 290, 325

Education

humor and learning, 103, 354-56

humor and the classroom environment, 352-54

humor in tests and exams, 356-57

humor in textbooks, 357-58

potential benefits of humor, 349-50

teachers' use of humor, 351-52

Educational television programs, 354-55

Elaboration Likelihood Model, 137

Electroencephalogram (EEG), 179-81

Emotion regulation, 19, 36, 270, 304, 305, 343

Emotional aspects of humor. See Mirth

Emotional distress

correlation with sense of humor, 273-74, 275-76,

289

effects of humor on, 271, 272

stress-moderating effects of humor, 284-85, 291-93,

294-95

Emotional well-beingcorrelation with sense of humor, 273-76

effects of humor on, 270-73

healthy versus unhealthy humor styles, 276-82

Empathy, 299, 302, 342, 344

Endocrine system, 162

Endorphins, 169, 311, 314, 326

Epilepsy. See Gelastic seizures

Epinephrine. See Catecholamines

Ethnic jokes, 44, 140

Etymology of humor, 20-2 1

Event-related potentials. See Electroencephalogram

Evolutionary basis of humor, 2-4, 185

Evolutionary functions of humor, 15-20, 114, 185-86

Evolutionary theories of humor, 45, 185-88

Exaggeration, 13, 124

Exhilaration. See Mirth

Extraversion

and brain response to humor, 183

and enjoyment of sexual humor, 196, 198, 199

and health-related behavior, 316

and sense of humor, 202, 209, 220, 222, 276

Face-saving function of humor, 17, 116-17, 125

Facial Action Coding System (FAGS), 161, 175, 325

Factor analysis, 50, 68, 197-202, 221-23

Fantasy assimilation, 66, 237

Far Side cartoons, 201, 254

Farley, Chris, 278

Fight-or-flight response, 60, 162-63

Five Factor Model (FFM), 193, 213, 215, 220

Fixed action pattern, 155

Forms of humor, 10-15, 116

Four-stage model of humor development, 238-41

Frames. See Schemas and scripts

Freudian slips, 14, 337

Freudian theory. See Psychoanalytic theory of humor

Friendship, 134, 300-301

Frontal lobe, 172, 179, 181, 184, 265

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), 175,

181-85

Funniness of humorand aggressive content, 50

and aversiveness, 201

and comprehension difficulty, 24344and humor comprehension, 60, 202

and physiological arousal, 60-61, 163

and punch line predictability, 71

and semantic distance, 93-94

and speed of comprehension, 87-88

effects of emotional arousal on, 61-62, 71

Galen, 21

Gallows humor, 48, 118, 289

Gelastic seizures, 170-71, 185

Gelatophobia, 348

Gender differences

brain response to humor, 183

humor and leadership, 368

humor styles, 213, 279

laughter, 157, 158, 233

role of humor in relationships, 299

sense of humor, 147-49, 261

use of humor in teaching, 352-53

General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH),91-92

Genetic factors in humor development, 253-56

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 195

Greeting cards, 43, 125

Group dynamics, 120, 123-24

Group identity and cohesion, 18, 122-23, 187,

364

424 su BIECT INDEX

HHarassment, 121, 369

Health benefits of humorblood pressure and heart disease, 326-27

illness symptoms, 327-29

immune system, 316-23

longevity, 329-31

pain, 323-26

popular beliefs, 310-13

potential mechanisms, 313-16

satisfaction with health, 328-29

Health psychology, 309-10

Health-related behavior, 316, 331

Heart disease, 327

Heart rate, 60, 162, 284

Hierarchical Linear Modeling, 295-97, 301, 302

Hippocrates, 20

History of humor concepts, 20-26

Hobbes, Thomas, 22, 44

Hope, 271

Hostile humor. See also Disparagement humor

aggressive personality traits and enjoyment, 38, 39

effect of mobilizing inhibitions on enjoyment, 39

effects of anger arousal on enjoyment, 39-40

effects on aggressiveness, 40

gender differences in enjoyment, 148

in factor analysis, 51, 201

Hostility, 47, 275, 327

H-reflex, 163-64

Humor (narrowly denned)and mental health, 277

and sense of humor, 192

distinguished from wit, 23

Freudian theory, 35-36

history of the concept, 23-24

Humor appreciation (as response). See Funniness of

humor; Mirth

Humor appreciation (individual differences)

and aggressive personality traits, 5 1

and aging, 265

and anxiety, 196

and conservatism, 196

and everyday humor experience, 206, 209

and humor production ability, 223

and mental health, 37, 294

and sexuality, 38

content-based approach, 196-97

early factor analytic studies, 197-200

genetic factors, 253-54

measures, 37, 196, 199, 200-205

response factors, 201-2

Ruch's factor analytic studies, 200-205

Humor Styles Questionnaire

affiliative humor style, 211, 278, 303

aggressive humor style, 211, 277-78, 303

and aging, 265-66

and interpersonal competence, 301

and mental health, 212-13, 279-81

and relationship satisfaction, 300-301, 302-3

correlations with other humor measures, 212, 279

personality correlates, 213-14

self-defeating humor style, 122, 211, 278, 303

self-enhancing humor style, 211, 278-79, 303

stress-moderating effects, 296-97

test development, 210-12

Humor-and-health movement, 25, 311-12

Hypothalamus, 163, 170, 173, 182

I

Immediacy (in education), 353-54

Immune systemand stress-moderating effects of humor, 293

correlations with sense of humor measures, 321-23

effects of emotions on, 317, 318

experimental studies of humor effects, 3 1 7-2 1

Impression formation. See Social perception

Incongruity, 6, 63, 78, 85

and event-related potentials (EEG), 180-81

and laughter in infants, 231, 232

and the brain, 177-78, 180-81, 182

in children's play, 236

in jokes, 63-64

schema-based explanations, 86-88

Incongruity theory of humorand tendentious humor, 65-66

description, 62-66


evaluation, 72-75

historical origins, 22

limitations, 64, 70, 74-75

Incongruity-resolution theory of humorand child development, 67-68, 241-43

and General Theory of Verbal Humor, 91

critique, 69, 72-74, 77

description, 64-66


SUBJECT INDEX 425

Industrial-organizational psychology, 336

Innateness of humor and laughter, 3, 185

Innocent humor. See Nontendentious humor

Insomnia, 294

Intelligence, 203, 216-17, 260, 263

International Journal ofHumor Research, 28

International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS), 28

Interpersonal attraction, 132-36

Interpersonal competence, 150, 218, 262-63, 301

Interpersonal conflict. See Conflict reduction function

of humor

Interpersonal functions of humor, 17-19

decommitment, 118-19

discourse management, 123-24

group identity and cohesion, 122-23

in childhood, 249

in the workplace, 361-65

ingratiation, 121-22

norm violation, 118

norms and control, 119-20

play, 124

saving face, 116-17

self-disclosure and social probing, 117-18

status and hierarchy maintenance, 120-21

unconscious nature, 117

Interpersonal nature of humor, 5-6, 42-43, 78, 114-16,

249-50

and coping with stress, 303-5

and mental health, 297-98

and physical health, 315-16

Intimacy, 299, 300

Introversion. See Extraversion

Ironic compliments and insults, 100, 120, 245

Irony

cognitive theories, 98-100

definition, 13, 98

development of comprehension in childhood, 245-47

interpersonal factors in comprehension, 100-101

interpersonal functions, 120

psycholinguistic research on, 98-101

I

Jeer pressure, 127-28

Joke Analysis and Production Engine QAPE), 106-7

Jokes

and incongruity theory, 63-64

and incongruity-resolution theory, 64-66, 67

and psychoanalytic theory, 33-35

and superiority/disparagement theory, 46-47

and the brain, 181-82

as prototype of humor, 1 5

as research stimuli, 14, 37-38, 42, 73, 114, 244-45

difficulty remembering, 104

examples, 7, 11, 12, 34, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 78, 90,

139, 244


hostile. See Hostile humorin conversation, 11-12, 73-74, 243

linguistic script theory, 89-91

sexual. See Sexual jokes

Jokework, 33, 39, 62

Joking relationships, 116

Jonson, Ben, 21

K

Kant, Immanuel, 58

Larsen, Gary, 201, 254

Larynx, 159

Laughing gas, 156, 215

Laughter. See also Mirth

acoustical characteristics, 156-59, 233-34

and emotional well-being, 270

and enjoyment of humor, 59, 202

and facial expression, 160-62

and interpersonal attraction, 133-34

and marital satisfaction, 144

and respiration, 159-60

and smiling, 155, 167-68, 233

and the brain, 171-73, 184

antiphonal, 130-31

as a fixed action pattern, 155

as a reflex, 155

as emotion expression, 9-10, 59, 128, 155-56,

161-62

as signal of friendliness, 129

communication function, 9, 128, 162

contagiousness, 128, 184

description, 9, 154

development in infancy and childhood, 230-34

emotion induction function, 10, 128-29, 130, 162,

187

evolutionary origins, 156, 168, 186-87

gender differences, 148, 157, 158, 233

health benefits, 313-14

426 SUBJECT INDEX

historical attitudes toward, 21-23

in apes. See Ape laughter

in rats, 168-69

in response to tickling, 173-76

in social interaction, 129-30, 232-33

pathological. See Pathological laughter

social bonding function, 130-31

social facilitation, 250

Laughter clubs, 311-12

Lawyer jokes, 141, 142

Leadership, 367-68

Liberalism. See Conservatism and humor appreciation

Liberation, humor as, 48-49

Limbic system, 171, 172, 182-83, 184

Linguistic theories of humor, 89-92

Loneliness, 300

Longevity, 329-31

Ludic system, 109, 168

MMalapropisms, 14

Mania, 169

Marital relationships, 144-45, 299

Mastery, 48, 248

Mate selection, 134-35, 187-88

Math anxiety, 294

Mathematics of humor, 28

Measures of humor

Coping Humor Scale (CHS), 209-10

Coping Orientations to Problem Experiences

(COPE), 288, 289-90

Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). See Humor

Styles Questionnaire

Humorous Behaviors Q-sort Deck (HBQD), 219-21

IPAT Humor Test of Personality, 199-200

Mirth Response Test, 37, 196

Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS),212

Relational Humor Inventory, 146

Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ), 206-8

Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ),208-9

State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI), 214-16

3 Witz-dimensionen (3WD), 200-205

Wit and Humor Appreciation Test (WHAT), 37

Memory, 103-5, 355-56

Mental health, 269-7'0, See also Emotional well-beingMesolimbic reward network, 182-83

Mirror neurons, 128, 184

Mirth

and arousal, 59-60

and pain tolerance, 325-26

and play, 155-56

and the brain, 182-84

and tickling, 174-75

animal models, 168-69

as the emotion of humor, 7-9, 155, 270

cognitive and social functions, 15-17, 186

definition, 8

health benefits, 314-15

psychophysiology, 60, 162-65

Misattribution theory of disparagement humor, 53

Mnemonic technique, 104, 355

Monty Python's Flying Circus, 201

Mourning. See Bereavement

Multiple sclerosis, 170

Muscle tension, 162, 163-64

NNatural High Thereapy, 338-39

Negotiation and humor, 139, 366-67

Neural basis of humor. See Brain basis of humor and

laughter

Neural network, 107

Neuroticism

and brain response to humor, 183

and Humor Styles Questionnaire, 280

and physical health, 328

and sense of humor, 202, 222, 273, 276

Newspaper headlines, 14

Nitrous oxide. See Laughing gas

Nontendentious humor, 34, 46

Nonverbal humor, 14, 36

Noradrenaline. See Catecholamines

Norepinephrine. See Catecholamines

Nucleus accumbens, 182, 183

Occupational stress, 288-89

Openness to experience, 203

Optimal arousal theory, 58, 62, 76

Optimism, 275-76, 330

Oratory, 136

Organizational culture, 365

Orienting response, 104

Overstatement. See Exaggeration

SUBJECT INDEX 427

Pain tolerance, 323-26

Paradoxical intention, 340-41

Paratelic state. See Reversal theoryParkinson's disease, 170, 171

Patch Adams, 3 1 1

Pathological laughter, 169-71, 173

Pedagogy. See Education

Peek-a-boo game, 6, 167, 231-32, 236, 237

Person perception. See Social perceptionPersonal ads, 134

Personality psychology, 191-92

Persuasion, 136-39

Phobias, 339-10

Physical exercise, 271, 312

Physical humor. See Nonverbal humorPlacebo effects, 325

Plato, 44

Play, 59

and aggression, 45, 47, 167

as a social function of humor, 124

as the basis of humor, 5, 75, 166, 185, 234-36

characteristics, 6, 75-76, 234

cognitive aspects, 108-9

development in infancy and childhood, 234-38

evolutionary functions, 185

in nonhuman animals, 165-69

make-believe, 236-37

Play face, 3, 165-67

Political correctness, 140

Political humor, 25, 50

Politicians, 136

Pons, 170, 171, 173

Positive emotion, 7, 16, 138, 315, See also Mirth

Positive psychology, 28, 72

Positron emission tomography (PET), 171

Practical jokes, 45, 126

Prefrontal cortex, 171, 173, 182, 183

Prejudice, 141-43

Prisoners of war, 287-88

Production of humor, 6, 41, 110

and humor comprehension, 262

as an ability, 215, 217-18

stress-moderating effects, 292, 291-92

Professional humorists, 220

longevity, 329-30

personality characteristics, 223-25

Provocative Therapy, 338

Psychiatric hospital staff, 120, 289

Psychiatric patients, 37, 272, 274-75

Psychoanalytic theory of humor

description, 33-36


evaluation, 41-43

Psycholinguistics, 84, 95-97

Psychology

definition, 26

relative neglect of humor, 27-28, 151

Psychoneuroimmunology, 25, 317

Psychopathy and humor enjoyment, 38

Psychotherapy

applications of humor, 336-37

humor as a therapist skill, 341^-3

humor techniques, 339-41

humor-based therapies, 337-39

research on humor in therapy, 343-46

risks of humor in therapy, 34649Puns

and superiority theory, 45^46

definition, 13

examples, 7, 46, 63

interpersonal functions, 46, 123, 124

Putdown humor. See Disparagement humor

RRacial humor, 51, 369

Rational-Emotive Therapy, 338

Relationship regulation, 114, 116, 186

Relationships. See Close relationships

Relaxation, 164, 272, 323, 326

Relaxed open-mouth display. See Play face

Religiosity and humor appreciation, 202, 203

Remote Associates Test, 102, 217, 218

Reversal theory


evaluation, 80-81

explanation of humor, 75-78

paratelic and telic states, 6, 76

synergy, 7, 76, 78

Riddles, 12, 240

and superiority theory, 45

computer generation, 106-7

development in childhood, 240, 241

Ridicule, 22, 45, 119, See also Disparagement humor

Rorschach inkblot test, 224

Rumination, 281

428 SUBJECT INDEX

Salience hypothesis, 65-66, 68, 70-71, 140

Sarcasm, 13, 98, 99-100, 177, 245^7, 289, See also

Irony

Satire, 13, 118

Scatalogical humor, 46, 196, 248

Schadenfreude, 18

Schemas and scripts

description, 85-86

in humor comprehension, 86-88

in irony comprehension, 99

in linguistic theories of humor, 90-91

in the weight judgment paradigm, 88-89

research using semantic distance techniques, 92-95

research using semantic priming techniques, 95-97

Schizophrenia, 37, 169, 272, 275

use of humor in treatment, 340-41, 344

Schopenhauer, Arthur, 63

Scripts. See Schemas and scripts

Self alienation, 48

Self-defeating humor style. See Humor Styles

Questionnaire

Self-deprecating humor, 13, 47, 135, 283

Self-enhancing humor style. See Humor Styles

Questionnaire

Self-esteem, 48, 52, 261, 274, 276, 293

Self-monitoring, 217-18

Semantic distance, 92-95

Semantic priming techniques, 95-97

Semantic Script Theory of Humor, 89-91

Sensation-seeking, 203

Sense of humorand aging, 263-66

and coping styles, 285-87

and emotional well-being, 273-82

and immunity, 321-23

and interpersonal attraction, 134-35

and physical health, 327-31

as a multifaceted concept, 193-95, 221-23

as a stress-moderating variable, 291-95

as an ability, 216-19

as humor appreciation, 195-205

as styles of humorous conduct, 219-21

as temperament, 214-16, 254-55

environmental influences on development, 256-59

genetic factors in development, 253-56

history of the concept, 24-26, 192-93

in apes, 3, 166

in childhood, 259-63

modification via training programs, 273, 370-71

popular conceptions, 24-26, 134, 193

self-report scales, 205-16, See also Measures of

humorsocial desirability, 24, 26, 134, 193, 206

Sentimentality, 43, 125

Sexist humor, 147, See also Disparagement humor

and harassment, 121, 369

and sexist attitudes, 140-41

effects on tolerance of sexist behavior, 142^-3

Sexual communication, 117-18

Sexual jokes, 34, 118

and sexual disinhibition, 38, 205

effects of sexual arousal on enjoyment, 40-41


in 3WD, 201

personality correlates of enjoyment, 38, 196, 198,

205

Sexual selection theory of humor, 187-88

Sexuality and enjoyment of humor, 38, 205

Sick humor, 46, 76, 197, 248

Silent bared-teeth display, 167

Skin conductance, 60, 162, 284

Slapstick comedy, 14, 36, 45, 59, 148

Smiling, 59, 155, 160, 167-68, 171-72, 230, 233, 270

Smoking, 316, 327,331Social bonding, 122, 130-31

Social comparison, 117-18

Social exclusion, 18, 187, 364

Social functions of humor. See Interpersonal functions

of humorSocial influence and control, 17-19, 119-20, 126

Social nature of humor. See Interpersonal nature of

humorSocial perception, 131-32, 135

Social psychology, 113

Social skills. See Interpersonal competenceSocial status, 120-21, 187, 251

Social support, 286, 298, 300, 315

Sociotropy and autonomy, 280

Spontaneous humor. See Conversational humor

Spoonerisms, 14

Stereotypes, 47, 140, 204

Stock conversational witticisms, 13

Stress-moderating effects of humor, 19-20

aggressive humor and coping, 19, 47-49, 282-83,

288

SUBJECT INDEX 429

and emotional well-being, 283-85, 287-97

and physical health, 315, 328

correlational studies, 291-95

experimental investigations, 283-85

gender differences, 149

in childhood, 247^9in psychoanalytic theory, 3 5

in reversal theory, 81

incongruity and coping, 19, 282

interpersonal aspects, 20, 303-5

process-oriented research approaches, 295-97

sense of humor and coping styles, 285-87

specific life stressors, 287-91

trait cheerfulness and coping, 216

Stroke, 170, 171, 176

Suicide, 275, 350

Superiority/disparagement theory of humor

description, 44-47


evaluation, 53-56

evolutionary basis, 45

implications, 47-49

Supplementary motor area, 172, 182

Sympathetic nervous system, 60-61, 162-63

Sympathy, 23, 24, 49

Synergy. See Reversal theory

Systematic desensitization, 339-40

Teaching. See Education

leasing, 13

aggressive, 44, 126

definition, 124-25

effects on observers, 127-28, 251

effects on targets, 127, 252

face-saving function, 17, 125

friendly, 122-23, 126

gender differences, 149

in children, 44, 250-52

in the workplace, 364, 369

interpersonal functions, 125-27

Television talk shows, 12-13

Telic Dominance Scale, 79

Telic state. See Reversal theory

Temperament, 21, 214-16, 223, 254-55, 262

Tendentiousness, 33, 36, 76, 104, See also Salience

hypothesisTender-mindedness. See Tough-mindednessTension relief, 19-20, 58, 61-62

Tension-release theory of laughter, 33, 57-58

Thematic Apperception Test, 39, 41, 196, 224

Theory of mind, 178-79, 245^6

Therapeutic clowns, 25, 312

Therapeutic humor. See Psychotherapy

Tickling, 156, 166, 168, 173-76, 230

Toilet humor. See Scatalogical humor

Tolerance for ambiguity, 205

Tough-mindedness, 204-5

Transfer of excitation, 61-62

Twain, Mark, 2 1

Twin studies, 253-55

Two-stage model of humor comprehension, 64-65, 91,

106, 180-81, 200

U

Ubiquity of humor, 10, 116, 362

Understatement. See ExaggerationUnintentional humor, 14

Universality of humor and laughter, 2, 185

WWeight judgment paradigm, 68-70, 78, 88-89

Well-being. See Emotional well-being

Witas distinct from humor, 22-24

in psychoanalytic theory, 33-35

Witticisms. See Conversational humor

Workfunctions of humor in the workplace, 361-65

humor and leadership, 367-68

humor and organizational culture, 365

humor in negotiation and mediation, 139,

366-67

Workplace harassment. See Harassment

AUTHOR INDEX

Abdel-Azim, E, 7, 182, 403

Abel, M. H., 284, 287, 293, 328, 373

Abelson, R. P., 37, 86, 373, 398, 412

AccoceJ., 200,411

Adams, E. R., 272, 373

Adams, P., 373

Adelsward, V., 366, 373

Affleck, G., 296, 415

Agarwal, R., 104, 356, 384

Aharonson, H., 273, 370, 404

Ahleman, S., 319, 321,396

AielloJ. R., 148,377

Ainsworth, M. D. S., 249, 373

Ainsworth, S. E., 271, 415

Alexander, R. D, 18, 54, 187, 373

Allen, L. G., 356, 416

Allin, A., 174, 391

AllmanJ. M., 183,417

Allport, G. W., 25, 192, 193, 277, 283, 306, 373

Alter, K., 184, 402

Alvarado, N., 175, 391

Andersen, J. E, 353, 374

Anderson, C. A, 274, 294, 328, 374

Anderson, E. A., 282, 393

Anderson, S. W., 172, 173, 175, 406

Andresen, L. W., 352, 407

Andrews, R., 193, 374

Anthony, S., 66, 70, 140, 390

Antoni, M. H., 289, 382

Apostolakos, P. C., 195, 414

Apte, M. L., 2, 116,374

Apter, M. J., 6, 7, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 85, 88, 91, 109,

124, 214, 222, 234, 350, 355, 374, 382, 404, 415

Arena, P. L, 289, 382

Armeli, S., 296, 415

Arnau, R. C., 271, 417

Arnoult, L. H., 274, 294, 328, 374

Aron, A., 133, 387

AronoffJ., 139,406

Arora, S., 71, 383

Arriaga, X. B., 126, 374

Arroyo, S., 170, 172, 374

AscoughJ. C., 357, 413

Ashforth, B. E., 122, 125, 415

Ashmore, R. D., 134, 385

431

432 AUTHOR INDEX

Askenasy, J. J., 154,374

Aspinwall, L. G., 28, 72, 374

Atsumi, T., 320, 374

Attardo, S., 66, 84, 89, 91, 92, 96, 140, 143, 243, 374,

410

Averill, J. R, 60, 162,374

Azim, E., 154, 183, 202, 374, 403

B

Babad, E. Y, 194,206,218,374

Bachelor, A., 341, 375

Bachg, D., 318, 383

Bachorowski, J.-A., 10, 114, 128, 129, 130, 136, 156,

157, 160, 167, 187, 375, 406, 411, 413

Bainum, C. K., 233, 375

Baker, K. H., 318, 321,384

Ball, R. L., 40, 375

Balshine, S., 187, 188, 377

Banks,}. S., 133, 151,379

Bariaud, E, 200, 239, 375, 411

Barnes, G. E., 316, 406

Barnet, K, 148, 377

Barnett, L. A., 234, 235, 375

Barnett, M. M., 195, 414

Baron, R. A., 40, 375

Barron, W. L., 50, 68, 84, 140, 197, 418

Bartlett, E C., 85, 375

Bartolome-Rull, D. S., 180, 384

Basu, K., 136,380

Bates, E, 103, 395

Bateson, R, 6, 185, 375

Baumeister, R. E, 125, 251, 252, 412

Bedford, A. R, 209, 316, 381

Behnke, E.J., 172, 182,388

Beit-Hallahmi, B., 288, 377

Belanger, H. G., 102, 375

Belanger, K. A., 286, 396

Bell, N. J., 218, 223, 256, 258, 299, 375, 402

Bell, S. M, 249, 373

Benedetti, E, 325, 375

Berg, K, 259, 384

Bergen, D., 234, 235, 238, 245, 375

Berger, A. A., 32, 375

Bergmann, M. S., 336, 376

Bergson, H., 44, 376

Berk, L. S., 319, 326,376

Berk, R. A, 350, 376

Berkeley, M. H., 199, 419

Berkowitz, J., 132, 384

Berkowitz, L., 40, 376

Berlyne, D. E., 27, 58, 75, 85, 234, 376

Bernet, W., 336, 376

Berns, G. S., 72, 376

Bernstein, D. K., 350, 376

Berntson, G. G., 162, 164, 378

Berscheid, E., 298, 376

Besemer, S. P., 101, 376

Bess, B. E., 224, 393

Best, E, 245, 419

Bihrle, A., 376

Bihrle, A. M., 177, 178, 376

Bill, B, 141, 376

Binsted, K., 105, 106, 107, 376

Bippus, A. M., 299, 305, 376, 377

Bittman, B. B., 319, 376

Bizi, S., 288, 377

Blakemore, S. J., 175,377

Blasko, D. G., 84, 99, 100, 394

Blissett, S. E, 274, 293, 404

Bloch, S., 336, 377

Blumenthal, J. A., 327,418

Boardman, G., 350, 419

Boes, M, 290, 417

Bogart, E. H., 180, 384

BollmerJ. M., 252, 398

Bonanno, G. A., 161, 290, 377, 394

BonoJ. E, 360, 393

Booth, R.J., 317, 331, 333,377

Boothroyd, R. A, 356, 357, 402

Borcherdt, B., 336, 377

Borowicz-Sibenik, M., 273, 396

Bosco, L., 245, 419

Bouchard, T.J., 255, 415

BowlbyJ, 298, 377

Boyle, G.J., 328,377

Bradbury, T. N., 145, 299, 381

Brandsma, J., 385

Branigan, C., 16, 186, 387

Breckler, S. J., 113,377

Bressler, E. R., 187, 188, 377

Brewer, R. E., 40, 408

BrinkerJ., 280, 387

Briskin, S., 336, 341, 419

Britton, R., 156, 399

Brodkin, S. G., 196, 414

Brodzinsky, D. M., 148, 218, 263, 377

AUTHOR INDEX 433

Bronnec, M., 275, 381

Brooks, G. P., 89, 390

BrooksJ. L., 294, 387

Brown, C. V, 173,402

Brown, D., 129, 251, 357, 358, 377, 378

Brown, G. E., 129, 250, 377

Brown, P, 125, 377

Brown, R. B., 377

Brown, S. B., 3, 170, 185, 412

Brown, S. L., 160, 377

Brown, W. E, 352, 387

Brown, W. I., 336, 382

Brownell, H., 391

Brownell, H. H., 177, 178, 376, 377, 378

Browning, S., 336

Browning, S., 377

Bruehl, S., 315, 378

Brust, R. G., 144, 404

Bryant, E B., 319, 404

BryantJ., 50, 52, 53, 61, 79, 251, 351, 352, 353, 357,

358, 359, 378, 379, 395, 418, 419

Bryk, A. S, 296, 378

Buckman, E. S., 336, 378

Buhrmester, D., 301, 378

BurgdorfJ., 109, 168, 174, 315, 333, 406

Burke, K. L., 284, 397

Burkhead, E.J., 274, 379

Burling, R., 3, 378

Burns, V. E, 162, 164, 318, 319, 391

Burroughs, WJ., 325, 399

Bush, B. A., 197, 248, 392

BushJ. E., 142,399

Buss, A. H, 254, 378

Buss, D. M., 298, 378

Buss, K. A., 254, 255, 389

Busse, P., 203, 410

Butovskaya, M. L., 167, 378

Buttram, R. T., 88, 383

Byrne, D., 38, 41, 51, 378

CacioppoJ. T, 137, 162, 164, 378, 407

Calhoun, L. G., 133, 134, 135, 151, 193, 284, 378,

379

Camarena, P., 272, 326, 418

Campbell, L., 302, 400

Campos, B., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412

Campos,;.;., 254

Cann, A., 133, 134, 135, 151, 193, 284, 378, 379

CantorJ. R., 50, 51, 52, 61, 79, 140, 147, 197, 379,

419, 420

Capps, L., 17, 125, 151,251,394

Carlson, C.R., 315, 378

Carney, M. A, 296, 415

CaronJ. E., 3, 185,379

Carpenter, E., 156, 399

Carr, D. E., 50, 383

Carrell, A., 168,315,410

Carrere, S., 145, 304, 390

Carroll, D., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391

Carroll,;. L, 200, 328, 379

Carson, D. K., 259, 379

Carstensen, L. L., 144, 299, 379

Carver, C. S., 288, 289, 379, 382

Casadonte, D., 28, 379

Case,;., 159,403

Cash, M., 250, 377

Cashion, ;. L., 12, 379

Castle, H., 156,399

Cattell, R. B., 192, 195, 199, 379, 399

Celso, B. G., 274, 379

Chafe, W., 164, 188, 379

Chapman, A.;., 60, 147, 249, 250, 379, 380

Chattopadhyay, A., 136, 380

Check,;. E, 352, 380

Chen, G., 212, 380

Cheriff, A. D., 319,321,401

Cherkas, L., 254, 380

Chomsky, N., 89, 380

Christenfeld, N., 174, 176, 391

Christie, I. C., 164, 380

Christophel, D. M., 351, 352, 353, 358, 390

Cicirelli, V. G, 264, 412

ClabbyJ. E, 218, 380

Clark, A, 327, 380

Clark, C., 366, 403

Clark, H. H., 99, 380

Clayton, C., 156, 399

Clement, R., 129, 384

Clouse, R. W., 365, 380

Coan,;., 145,304,390

Cody,M.;., 12,379

Cogan, D., 323, 380

Cogan, R., 323, 380

Cohan, C. L., 145, 299, 381

Cohen, S., 291, 381

434 AUTHOR INDEX

CollinsJ. E., 7, 13, 14, 15, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86,

87, 88, 96, 98, 419

Collinson, D. L., 361, 364, 381

Colston, H. L., 84, 381

Comisky, P. W., 351, 352, 353, 378

Connor, M. C., 356, 402

Consalvo, C. M., 362, 366, 381

Conway, M., 138, 381

Cook, K. S, 132, 381

Cook,M, 209, 316, 381

Coolidge, C., 49, 401

Corey, L. A., 259, 384

Corkill, A. R., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391

Cornett, C. E., 350, 381

Corruble, E., 275, 381

Coser, R. L., 120, 361, 381

Coulson, A. S., 77, 381

Coulson, S., 181

Cousins, N., 25, 310, 311,381

Cox, D. S., 315, 414

Craighero, L., 128, 409

Craik, K. H., 219, 220, 381

Crane, J.S., 351,352, 353, 378

Crawford, M., 147, 148, 149, 213, 327, 336, 381

Creusere, M. A., 101, 245, 382

Criqui, M. H., 316, 330, 400

Cropley, A., 269, 388

Csikszentmihalyi, M., 28, 412

CulverJ. L., 289, 382

Cunningham, M. R., 135, 399

Cunningham, W. A., 88, 382

Czech, D. R., 284, 397

DDale,;. A., 271, 284, 382, 419

Damasio, A. R, 109, 172, 173, 175, 382, 406

Damasio, H., 172, 173, 175, 406

Damico, S. B., 260, 261, 382

Dance, K. A, 19, 274, 293, 315, 396, 401

Daniel, H.;, 134, 188,382

Danks, P. K., 271, 415

Danzer, A., 271,382

Darwin, C., 3, 155, 165, 174, 382

Daubman, K. A., 102, 393

Davidson, I. F. W. K., 336, 382

Davidson, K., 197, 274, 327, 397

Davidson, R. ;., 160,385

Davidson-Katz, K., 318, 321, 397

104, 147, 156,209,383,

Davies, A. P., 350, 355, 382

Davies, C., 44, 48, 140, 382

Davies, P, 129, 159, 232, 233, 405

Davis, G. A., 101, 382

DavisJ. M., 118,382

Day, H. L, 60, 163, 218, 382, 397

Day, K. D, 354, 417

de Groot, A., 245, 382

de;ong-Meyer, R., 60, 162, 163, 392

de Koning, E, 146, 300, 382

Deal, T. E. D, 365, 382

Deaner, S. L., 273, 382

Decker, W. H., 367, 383

Deckers, L., 50, 69, 84,

398, 410

Deckers, L. H., 398

Deffenbacher, ;. L, 356, 357, 383

Deinzer, R., 318, 383

Deitz, S. R., 356, 357, 383

DeNeve, K. M., 276, 383

Derks, P., 71, 88, 102, 104, 132, 178, 180, 218, 301,

302, 356, 375, 382, 383, 384, 389, 404, 406

Dewitte, S., 218, 384

Dews, S., 120, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384

Di Maio, S., 91, 374

Dickson, K. L., 230, 232, 233, 386

Diener, E., 16, 399

Dienstbier, R. A., 271, 384

Dillon, K. M., 318, 321, 328, 384

Dimitrovsky, L., 344, 409

Dixon, N. E, 19, 28, 105, 282, 384

DobbinJ. P., 81, 293, 321, 322, 400, 401

Dobrowolska, O, 405

Dobrowolska, O., 232

Dolan, R.;., 181,389

Donnerstein, E., 40, 403

D'Onofrio, B. M., 259, 384

Donoghue, E. E., 129, 384

DorisJ., 196, 384

Doris, P., 146, 212, 296, 300, 384

Dorz, S., 288, 384

Dougherty, K. G., 129, 407

DowJ. H., 359, 420

Dowd, E. T., 340, 404

Dozois, D. ;. A., 280, 387

Drubach, D. A., 170, 419

du Pre, A., 337, 384

Dube, L., 138,381

AUTHOR INDEX 435

Duchowny, M. S., 169, 385

Duffey, N. S., 218, 223, 250, 256, 258, 299, 375, 402

Dull, V. T., 346, 398

Dunbar, R. I. M., 188, 385

Duncan, C. P., 103, 137, 385

Duncan, W. J., 360, 361, 369, 385

Dunn, M. L., 98, 104, 398

Dutrizac, G., 300, 302, 400

Dworkin, E. S., 40, 385

Dwyer, T., 363

Dwyer, T. (1991), 385

Eagly, A. H., 134, 385

Eastman, M., 75, 108, 385

Eaves, L.J., 259, 384

Ebener, D.J., 274, 379

Edington,J., 69, 383

EdwardsJ. R., 291,381

EfranJ. S., 40, 385

Ehrlich, S. B., 361, 391

Ekman, R, 62, 156, 159, 160, 161, 171, 385, 387,

410

Elliott, S. M, 357, 378

Ellis, A., 338, 343, 385

Engel, G. L., 310, 385

Epstein, S., 38, 50, 147, 385, 398

Erickson, K. V, 12, 379

Ertel, S. L., 147, 415

Ervin-Tripp, S. M., 123, 147, 149, 385, 397

Esler,M. D, 315, 385

Esses, V. M, 141, 197, 416

Etgen, M., 132,384

Ettmger, R. E, 357, 413

Eysenck, H. J, 63, 74, 192, 194, 197, 198, 201, 222,

385

Fabrizi, M. S., 245, 261, 385

Fagen, R., 109, 385

Falissard, B., 275, 381

Farina, A., 118, 382

Farrelly, E, 338, 385, 386

Fathman, R. E., 244, 408

Fein, O., 84, 97, 98, 99, 389

Feingold, A, 134, 135, 151, 187, 188, 216, 217, 386

FeisalJ. P., 360, 385

Felmlee, D. H., 146, 386

Felten, D. L., 319, 376

Ferguson, M. A., 143, 294, 386

Fernandez-Dols, J. M., 10, 114, 128, 411

Ferrarese, M. J., 263,407

Ferris, D. R., 218, 386

Fierman, E., 196, 384

Fine, G. A., 122, 386

Fischer, K. R., 5, 113, 128, 408

Fish,J. M., 141, 147, 197,392

Fisher, R. L., 224, 257, 386

Fisher, S., 196, 224, 257, 386, 405

Fiske, S. T, 27, 151,389

Fitzgerald, M., 179,399

FlugelJ. C, 27, 386

Fogel, A, 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405

Foley, E., 270, 386

Folkman, S., 282, 397

Foot, H. C., 249, 380

Forabosco, G., 66, 92, 109, 169, 200, 386, 410

Ford, C. V, 19, 287, 386

Ford, T. E., 142, 143, 294, 386

Forester,}., 366, 387

Fortson, S. B., 352, 387

Foster, J. A., 344, 387

Foster, P. S., 162, 163, 387

Fox, K, 304, 399

Fraley, B., 133, 387

Francis, L. E., 150, 304, 387

Frank, M. G., 160, 171, 387

Frankl, V. E., 19, 288, 340, 387

Franzini, L. R., 336, 337, 341, 342, 387

Fredrickson, B. L., 16, 19, 72, 186, 315, 387

Freiheit, S. R., 275, 387

Freud, S, 23, 33, 35, 36, 48, 140, 192, 248, 277, 279,

282, 387

Frewen, P. A., 280, 387

Fridlund, A. J., 174,388

Fried, L, 172, 182, 388

Friedman, B. H., 164, 380

Friedman, H. S., 316, 330, 388, 400

Friesen, W. V, 62, 160, 161, 385

Frith, C. D., 175, 377

Frontzak, N. L., 103, 385

Fry, D. P., 167, 388

Fry, P. S., 274, 286, 293, 328, 388

Fry, W. E, 8, 75, 160, 312, 314, 319, 326, 336, 376,

388

Frymier, A. B., 352, 354, 417

436 AUTHOR INDEX

Fiihr,M., 241,249, 388

Fujimori, J., 320,419

Fujisawa, S., 320, 374

Fuller, R. G., 129, 388

Fullerton, C. S., 289, 401

Furman, W., 301,378

Gable, S. L, 282, 307, 409

Gadfield, N. J., 147,380

Gadish, O., 41, 144, 299, 420

Gallivan,;, 148, 388

Galloway, G., 269, 388

GambleJ, 3, 166,388

Ganim, R. M, 102,218,403

Gardner, H, 177, 178, 245, 376, 377, 378, 417,

419

Gardner, J. B., 104,356,384

Garmezy, N, 263, 407

Garner, B. P., 238, 388

Gavanski, I, 59, 202, 388

Gelb, B. D, 103, 388

Gelkopf, M, 272, 275, 336, 342, 343, 388

Gerber, W. S, 69, 389

Gergen, K., 118,403

Gerkens, D, 84, 95, 96, 97, 417

Gerrig, R. J, 99, 380

Gervais, M., 3, 6, 10, 15, 28, 114, 128, 129, 131, 154,

156, 166, 167, 169, 184, 185, 186, 187, 389

Gezici, E. 6, 164, 406

Gibbs, R. W, 84, 98, 99, 245, 389

Gibson, D. E, 360, 361, 370, 389

Gilbert, D. T, 27, 151,389

Gillikin, L. S, 178, 180, 384, 389

Giora, R, 84, 97, 98, 99, 381, 389

Gladfelter, E., 69, 383

Glaser, R, 165, 315, 317, 322, 394, 416

Gleitman, H., 231,242, 406

Godkewitsch, M., 60, 79, 93, 94, 162, 389

Goel, V, 181,389

Goffman, E, 116, 125,389

Golan, G, 409

Golan, G. (1986), 344

Goldsmith, H. H, 254, 255, 389

Goldstein,;, 389, 390, 402, 411

GoldsteinJ. H, 60, 66, 70, 140, 144, 162, 299, 309,

389, 390, 402

Gollob, H. F, 39, 50, 390, 413

Goodenough, F. L, 185, 390

Goodwin, R, 134, 390

Gordon, B, 170, 172, 374

GorhamJ, 351, 352, 353, 358, 390, 394

Gotestam, K. G, 208, 415

Gottman,;. M, 144, 145, 299, 304, 379, 390

Gould, L, 72, 243, 244, 419

Gould, S.;, 188,390

Graesser, A. C, 11, 12, 73, 79, 97, 116, 117, 119, 121,

123, 398, 403

Graeven, D. B, 147, 390

Graf, L. A, 147, 392

Graham, E. E, 89, 390

Grammer, K, 134, 390

Gray, C. D, 129, 400

GrayJ, 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277, 279,

290, 300, 401

GrayJ. A, 164,390

Greenberg, R. P, 196, 405

Greenwood, D, 141, 197, 390

Gregory, ;. C, 58, 176,390

Greicius, M. D, 7, 182, 403

GreigJ. Y. T, 31,390

Gressley, D, 147, 148, 213, 327, 382

Grieger, R, 338

Griffiths, K, 141, 197, 403

Grimshaw, M, 212, 280, 301, 396

Groch, A. S, 147, 390

Grodd, W, 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418

Gross,;.;, 19,270,390

Groth, G, 134, 394

Grotjahn, M, 34, 339,390

Grugulis, I, 361, 391

Gruner, C. R, 24, 34, 45, 46, 54, 57, 63, 74, 75, 167,

355, 391

Grziwok, R, 196, 391

Gulas, C. S, 136, 137,418

HHaddadJ, 52, 140, 197,396

Haellstroem, T, 316, 391

Hagadone, K. M, 294, 387

Hagan, C. C, 183, 202, 403

Haig, R. A, 336, 391

Hall, G. S, 174, 391

Hamby, S, 178, 417

HammesJ. A, 196, 391

Hampes, W. P, 274, 299, 391, 416

AUTHOR INDEX 437

Haney, T. L., 327, 418

Hannah, T. E., 294, 328, 395

Happe, E, 178, 391

Hardy, P, 275, 381

Harman, J., 60, 162, 389

Harris, C. R., 174, 175, 176, 391

Harris, M., 247, 407

Harris, M.J., 252, 398, 412

Harris, P. E., 60, 163, 393

Harris, S. D., 289, 379

Harrison, C. M., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391

Harrison, L. K., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391

Hart,;., 170, 172,374

Haselton, M. G., 88, 384

Hatch, M.J., 361,391

Hauck, W. E., 218, 391

Hay,J, 148,391

Hayashi, K., 321,392

Hayashi, T., 321,392

Hazaleus, S. L., 356, 357, 383

Hebb, D. O., 58, 392

Heerey, E. A., 17, 55, 117, 124, 125, 126, 146, 151,

251,394

Hehl, F.-J., 38, 50, 51, 73, 194, 195, 200, 202, 203, 204,

205, 242, 265, 392, 402, 410, 411

Hemmasi, M., 147, 392

Hempelmann, C. E, 91, 374

Hener, T., 325, 418

Henkin, B., 141, 147, 197, 392

Henman, L. D., 19, 287, 304, 392

Heredia, R., 84, 95, 96, 97, 414, 417

Hertenstein, M. J., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412

Hervas, D., 102, 384

Herzog, T. R., 197, 201, 248, 392

Heyman, R. E., 304, 399

HicksonJ., 200, 392

Hieatt, A. C., 325, 399

Higbee, G, 336, 339, 417

Hillson, T. R., 93, 392

Hobbes, T., 8, 22, 44

Hobden, K. L., 141, 142, 392, 405

Hochberg, E, 254, 380

Holland, N. N, 48, 392

Holmen,;., 328, 329, 330, 415

Holmes, D. S., 38, 392

HolmesJ., 362, 363, 365, 392

Holt, K., 284, 379

Hopfield, N., 246, 414

Horibe, E, 67, 241, 413

Horvath, A., 341, 375

House,J. S., 316, 392

Howerton, E., 55, 125, 395

Hrelec, E. S., 131,402

Hricik, D., 104, 383

Hsu, H.-C, 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405

Hubbard, R. W., 319, 326, 376

Hubert, W., 60, 162, 163, 392

Hudak, M. A., 284, 419

Hugelshofer, D. S., 281, 405

Hull, R., 84, 95, 96, 97, 417

Hulme, C, 156, 399

Hunt, M., 246, 247, 384

I

laffaldano, M. T., 360, 392

Iciek, L, 317, 411

Idel, H, 318, 383

Isbell, L. M., 141, 197, 390

Isen, A. M., 16, 102, 109, 392

Ishii, H., 321, 392

Islam, A., 233, 405

ItamiJ., 319,326,393

Ito, T. A., 162, 164, 378

Iwanaga, S., 321, 392

Iwase, M., 171, 182, 393

J

;acobs, N. E., 359, 420

;andorf, L., 315,414

;anes, L. M., 127, 358, 393

;anus, B. R., 224, 393

;anus, S. S., 224, 393

Jenkins, S., 69, 383

;ensen, E. N., 208, 415

;ettej. L., 275, 396

}o, B., 154, 183, 374

;ohn, O. P., 193, 222, 393, 401

;ohnson, A. K., 282, 393

Johnson, H. A., 350, 393

;ohnson, K. E., 239, 393

;ohnson, M. M. S., 102, 393

;ones, E. E., 131,393

;onesj. A., 137,393

;onesj. M., 60, 163,393

Joss-Reid,;. M., 328, 377

;udge, T. A, 360, 393

438 AUTHOR INDEX

K

Kalland, S., 132, 384

Kallen, H. M., 48, 283, 393

Kamei, T., 319, 393

Kane, T. R., 17, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 393

KanjorskiJ, 141, 197,411

Kant, I., 58

Kantor, M, 275, 394

KaplanJ., 120, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384

Kaplan, R. M., 103, 394

KarafaJ. A., 197,248,392

Karasik, R, 60, 162, 389

Karatinos, J., 170,419

Kasprowicz, D. J., 317, 411

KasrielJ., 254, 418

Kataria, M., 272, 311, 314, 394

Katz, A., 84, 94, 99, 100, 381, 394, 416

Katz, A. N., 394

Katz, B. E, 107, 394

Katz-Zeilig, M, 170,419

Kawai, K, 321,392

Kawarai, T., 320, 374

Kazarian, S. S., 212, 213, 275, 300, 394, 396

Kazmerski, V. A., 84, 99, 100, 394

Keegan, D., 377

Keinan, G., 288, 324, 377, 404

Keith-Spiegel, R, 31, 154, 196, 394, 414

Kelley, D. H, 353, 394

Kelley, H. H., 132,394

Kellogg, R. T., 83, 394

Kelly, W. E., 274, 394

Keltner, D., 8, 10, 16, 17, 55, 114, 117, 124, 125, 126,

146, 151, 161, 186, 251, 290, 298, 377, 394, 412

Kennedy, A. A., 365, 382

Kennedy, S., 165, 394

Kenny, D. T., 71, 96, 394

Kenrick, D. T., 134, 298, 378, 394

Kerkkanen, P., 316,394

Kerr, S. T., 144, 299, 397

Kessler, J. W., 125, 251, 252, 412

Kharazmi, S., 156,418

Kiecolt-Glaser, J., 165, 315, 316, 317, 322, 394, 416

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 394

Killinger, B., 344, 395

Kimata, H., 320, 395

King, L, 16, 399

Kintsch, W., 103, 395

Kipper, S., 158, 395

Kirkpatrick, L. A., 102, 375

Kirsh, G. A, 212, 221, 280, 301, 395, 396

Kizer, P, 69, 383

Klein, A. J., 242, 395

Klein, D. M, 358, 395

Kleineidam, C, 318, 383

Kline, R, 36, 395

Klingman, A., 273, 370, 404

Klions, H. L., 271, 382

Knox, I., 48, 283, 395

Koestler, A., 7, 21, 43, 63, 64, 72, 75, 77, 85, 91, 101,

115, 154,218,395

Kohda, M., 320, 419

Kohler, G., 214, 215, 216, 218, 223, 254, 276, 328,

395,410,411

Kong, Y. H, 327, 418

Koppel, M. A., 218, 395

Korb, L.J., 336, 395

Korotkov, D., 294, 328, 395

Kowalski, R. M., 55, 125, 395

Kozintsev, A. G., 167, 378

Kredich, K. E, 129, 407

Kreitler, S., 272, 336, 342, 343, 388

Kring, A. M., 17, 125, 151, 251, 394

Kronberg, M. M., 129, 407

Krupat, E., 346,411

Kubie, L. S., 347, 395

Kueneman, K., 318, 321, 397

Kuhlman, T. L., 70, 336, 342, 347, 395

Kuiper, N. A., 5, 11, 12, 19, 73, 81, 97, 113, 130, 147,

148, 208, 212, 221, 245, 269, 273, 274, 275, 280,

285, 286, 293, 301, 315, 316, 329, 330, 394, 395,

396, 400, 401

Kulick, W., 49, 401

Kumano, H., 319,393

Kush, J. C., 200, 396

Kushner, M., 360, 396

Kutas, M., 181,381

Kwon, P, 281, 405

La Fave, L., 51, 52, 140, 197, 396

La Gaipa, J. J., 123,396

Labott, S. M., 274, 294, 319, 321, 328, 396

Lacey, L. A., 359, 420

Lamb, C. W, 41, 397

Lambert, N.K., 319, 397

Lambert, R.B., 319, 397

AUTHOR INDEX 439

Lammers, G. J., 163, 164, 406

Lampert, M. D, 147, 149, 219, 220, 381, 397

Landis, C, 197, 397

Landis, K. R., 316, 392

Landy, D., 40, 397

Langevin, R., 60, 163, 218, 382, 397

LaPointe, L. L., 159,403

Larsen, G., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277,

279, 290, 300, 401

Larsen, J. T., 162, 164,378

Larwin, D. A., 201, 392

LauerJ. Q, 144,299,397

Lauer, R. H., 144, 299, 397

Lazarus, R. S., 7, 282, 397

Leacock, S. B., 44, 397

Leak, G. K., 40, 397

Leap, T.L., 361,369, 385

Leber, D. A., 337, 397

LeDouxJ. E., 164,397

Lee,J. W., 319, 326, 376

Lee, K. L., 327, 418

Leekam, S., 246, 419

Lefcourt, H. M., 2, 19, 43, 193, 197, 206, 207, 208,

209, 210, 218, 269, 274, 282, 283, 291, 294, 299,

315,318, 321, 327,397,401

Lefort, B., 243, 397

Lehman, K. M., 284, 397

Lehnert, K. L., 275, 387

Leite, Q, 212, 280, 301, 396

Lemery, K. S., 254, 255, 389

Lemma, A., 336, 398

Lepsinger, R., 367, 419

Lerner, V., 336, 341, 419

Lesser, R. P., 170, 172,374

Levenson, R. W., 16, 19, 144, 299, 315, 379, 387, 390,

398

Leventhal, H., 214, 333, 398

Levi, L., 60, 162, 398

Levine, J, 36, 37, 39, 50, 72, 196, 243, 244, 248, 390,

398, 409, 413, 419

Levinson, S. C., 125, 377

Levinson, W., 346, 398

Lewis, P., 26, 140, 398

Lightner, R. M., 252, 398

Lim, D. X, 38, 51,416

Lim, K, 246, 247, 384

Lindzey, G., 27, 151,389

Lippman, L. G., 98, 104, 398

Lloyd, E. L., 159,398

Lloyd, S. A., 236, 250, 402

Loeb, M., 248, 398

LoehlinJ. C, 255, 398

LoftisJ. M., 174,388

Long, D. L, 11, 12, 73, 97, 116, 117, 119, 121, 123,

398

Longo, L. C, 134,385

LorionJ., 143, 387

LoscoJ., 147,398

Lounsbury, K. R., 233, 375

Lourey, E., 209, 398

Love, A. M., 147, 398

Lowe, D., 319,407

Lowe, G, 156, 209, 399

Luborsky, L. B., 192, 199, 379, 399

Lucchesi, W., 155,407

Ludovici, A. M., 44, 399

Lumden, D. B., 274, 415

Lundahl, B., 69, 383

Lundy, D. E., 135, 399

Lykken, D. T., 255, 415

Lynch, M., 338, 386

Lyons, V, 179,399

LyttleJ., 137,399

Lyubomirsky, S., 16, 399

MMacDonald, K. A., 172, 182, 388

MacDonald, N. E., 231, 399

MacGregor, A. J., 254, 380

Mackie, D. M., 138,399

MacLean, P. D., 172, 399

Madanes, C., 336, 399

Madden, T.J., 137,399

Maesen, W. A, 52, 197, 396

Magnavita, J. J., 191, 399

Mahoney, P., 356, 357, 416

Mahony, D. L., 325, 399

Maio, G. R., 141, 142, 399, 405

Makhijani, M. G., 134,385

Mancuso, R. A., 16, 186, 387

MandlerJ. M., 85, 399

Manke, B., 255, 256, 258, 399

Mann, B.J., 121,414

Manne, S., 304, 399

Mannell, R. C., 73, 130, 399

Marci, C. D., 163, 341, 342, 400

440 AUTHOR INDEX

Marcus, N. N., 278, 348, 400

Markiewicz, D., 136,400

Marra, M., 362, 363, 365, 392

Marsee, K. M., 129, 407

Marshall, N., 140, 396

Martens, W.H.J, 336, 400

Martin, C. O, 172, 173, 175, 406

Martin, D. M., 361, 400

Martin, G. N., 129, 400

Martin, L. L, 270, 414

Martin, L.R., 316, 330, 400

Martin, R., 284, 397

Martin, R. A., 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 38, 73, 79, 81, 93,

97, 113, 122, 130, 147, 148, 188, 192, 193, 195, 206,

207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 245, 248,

265, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285,

286, 290, 291, 293, 294, 299, 300, 301, 302, 310,

313, 315, 316, 321, 322, 328, 329, 330, 349, 369,

377, 380, 387, 392, 394, 396, 397, 400, 401, 415,

419

Martin, R. B., 274, 294, 319, 321, 328, 396

Martineau, W. H., 116, 119, 401

Martinez, E, 84, 95, 96, 97, 417

Mascaro, N., 271,417

Masland, J. L., 156, 359, 418, 420

Maslow, A. H., 277, 306, 401

Massam, M., 289, 403

Masselos, G., 350, 401

Masten, A. S., 262, 263, 401, 407

Masumura, S., 319, 393

Matheis, R., 270, 386

Matthews, B.J., 183,417

Maxwell, D., 284, 373

May, R., 282, 401

Mayer, F. S, 129, 407

Mayne, T.J., 164,401

Mazzella, R., 216, 217, 386

McCabe, R. B., 134, 188, 382

McCarrey, M. W., 129, 384

McCarrollJ. E., 289, 401

McCauley, C., 49, 401

McClelland, D. C, 319, 321, 401

McCluskey-Fawcett, K. A., 249, 413

McComas, H. C., 30, 401

McConathaJ. T, 273, 382

McCrae, R. R., 193, 295, 401, 413

McCubbinJ. A., 315, 378

McCue, M., 323, 380

McDougall, W., 49, 401

McGhee, P. E., 3, 34, 60, 66, 162, 178, 200, 203, 218,

223, 230, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,

248, 250, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 265, 273, 299,

312, 326, 370, 375, 379, 389, 401, 402, 411

McGrath, G., 336, 377

McGuire, F. A., 272, 373

McKenzie, M, 55, 125, 395

McKenzie, S. D., 286, 396

McLachlan, A., 209, 398

McMahon, L., 73, 130, 399

McMorris, R. F, 356, 357, 402

Mednick, S. A., 101, 402

MegdellJ. I., 345, 402

Mendez, M. E, 173,402

Menon, V., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403

Mers, R. W., 71, 74, 96, 155, 407

Mertz, E., 102, 393

Mervis, C. B., 239, 393

Messinger, D., 230, 232, 233, 386

Mettee, D., 397

Mettee, D. R., 40, 131,402

Meyer, J.C., 361,402

Meyer, M., 184,402

Michel, D., 178, 378

Middleton, R., 51,403

Milich, R, 252, 398, 412

Miller, G. E, 187, 403

Miller, M., 327, 380

Mills, D. E., 274, 327, 397

Minchoff, B., 318,321,384

Mindess, H, 48, 283, 339, 403

Minsky, M., 86, 403

Mio, J. S., 79, 403

Mitchell, D. C., 95, 412

Mittwoch-Jaffe, T., 319, 403

Mobbs, D., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403

Moeller, M., 60, 163, 392

Molleston, J. L., 147,418

Monarch, N. D., 55, 117, 124, 126, 146, 151, 394

Moody, R. A., 309, 403

Moore, T. E, 141, 197,403

Moran, C., 403

Moran, C. C, 137, 271, 289, 403

Moran, E. K., 163, 341, 342, 400

Morreall, J, 44, 58, 63, 77, 360, 403

Morris, S.J., 147,390

Morse, S., 118,403

AUTHOR INDEX 441

Mowrer, D. E., 159, 403

Muchinsky, P. M., 360, 392

Mueller, C. W., 40, 403

Mulkay, M., 17, 42, 63, 105, 114, 121, 187, 362, 366,

403

Mullooly, J. P., 346, 398

Munoz, R. E, 19, 270, 390

Murdock, M. C., 102, 218, 403

Murdock, S. A., 336, 339, 417

Murgatroyd, S., 222, 404

Murray, H. A, 51, 197,419

Murray, R. P., 316,406

Murstein, B. I., 144, 404

Mylander, M., 312,373

NNakabayashi, Y, 320, 374

Nakawatase, T. V., 173, 402

Nance, J. T., 284, 379

NandaJ. P., 350, 376

Napier, B.J., 319, 326,376

Naus, P, 141, 376

NealeJ. M, 315, 414

Nelson, A. J., 219, 220, 381

Nelson, D. A, 357, 413

NelsonJ. E., 103, 137,385

Nelson, P., 319, 407

Nelson-Goens, G. C., 230, 232, 233, 386

Nerhardt, G., 68, 69, 79, 85, 404

Neuhoff, C. C., 270, 404

NeuliepJ. W., 351,404

Nevo, B., 41, 404

Nevo, O, 41, 273, 324, 370, 404

Newman, M. G., 283, 404

Newton, G. R., 340, 404

Newton, T. L., 316,394

NezlekJ. B., 301, 302, 404

Nezu,A. M., 274, 293,404

Nezu, C. M., 274, 293, 404

Nias, D. K., 198, 253, 254, 404

Nicholl, S., 329, 330, 396

Nichols, R. C, 255, 398

Niethammer, T., 156, 404

Nilsen, A. P., 14, 404

Nilsen, D. L. E, 14, 404

Nitschke, W., 319, 404

Njus, D. M., 319, 404

Nobezawa, S., 171, 182, 393

Nobori,M, 319, 326, 393

Noppa, H., 316, 391

Noriega, V, 289, 379

Norrick, N. R., 12, 13, 73, 86, 89, 97, 98, 99, 116, 123,

124, 404, 405

Novara, C., 288, 384

Nowicki, G. P., 102, 393

Nwokah, E. E., 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405

Oberg, B.-M., 366, 373

Obrdlik, A, 48, 405

O'Brien, K. E, 134, 188, 382

O'Connell, W. E., 28, 37, 277, 282, 338, 339, 405

Odell, M., 336, 405

Oemig, C, 55, 117, 124, 126, 146, 151, 394

Okada, H, 171, 182, 393

Olinger, L. J., 19, 81, 269, 275, 285, 286, 315, 396,

401

Olson, H. A., 342, 405

Olson, J. M., 113, 127, 141, 142, 358, 377, 392, 393,

399, 405

Olson, M. L., 281,405

Omwake, L., 193, 405

O'Neill, R. M., 196, 405

Oppenheimer, L., 261, 417

Oppliger, P. A., 248, 350, 351, 354, 405

O'Quin, K., 102, 139, 218, 406

Oring, E., 43, 125, 406

Orr, S. P., 163, 341, 342, 400

Ortony, A., 85,411

Osgood, C. E., 93, 406, 413

OstroffJ, 304, 399

Ott, C, 200, 411

Ouchi, Y, 171, 182,393

Overeem, S., 163, 164, 406

Overholser, J. C., 274, 275, 295, 387, 406

Owren, M.J., 10, 114, 128, 129, 130, 136, 156, 157,

160, 167, 187, 375, 406

Pain, H., 107, 376

Palmer, C. T., 119,406

Panksepp, J., 8, 28, 109, 154, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,

170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 185, 314, 315, 333, 406

Papa, M. J., 89, 390

Papini, D. R., 249, 413

Park, R., 244, 406

442 AUTHOR INDEX

Parks, S. L., 251, 358, 378

Parrott, W. G., 2 3 1,242, 406

ParviziJ., 172, 173, 175,406

Pascoe, G. C., 103, 394

Paskmd, H. A., 163, 406

Patrick-Miller, L., 333, 398

Patterson,;. R., 196, 199,418

Patton, D., 316,406

Patton, G. K., 360, 393

PaulosJ. A., 28, 407

Payne, B., 141, 197, 403

Payr, S, 105, 416

Pell, C, 69, 383

Pellegrini, D. S., 263, 407

Pennebaker, J. W, 317, 328, 331, 333, 377, 417

Perera, S., 319, 407

Peterson, C., 269, 412

Peterson, J. P., 345, 407

Petta, P., 105, 416

Petty, R. E., 137, 138, 407, 418

Pexman, P. M, 100, 247, 407

Phillips, M., 197, 274, 397

PiagetJ., 236, 240, 241,407

Pien, D., 66, 67, 68, 237, 242, 407

Pierce, R. A., 342, 347, 407

Pietrangelo, D. J., 356, 357, 402

Pilon, R., 240, 413

Pinch, T., 366, 403

Pinderhughes, E. E., 250, 407

Plomin, R., 254, 378

Plutchik, R, 109, 407

Poeck, K., 169, 407

Poehlmann, K. M., 162, 164, 378

Pollio, H. R., 71, 74, 96, 155, 233, 245, 261, 345, 375,

385, 407

Ponder, M. R., 50, 68, 84, 418

Porterfield, A. L., 129, 274, 294, 328, 407

Powell, F. C., 212, 223, 265, 274, 416

PowellJ. P., 352,407

PowelsonJ., 178, 378

PowelsonJ. A., 177, 178, 376

Pozo, C., 289, 379

Prasinos, S., 257, 408

Prentice, N. M., 240, 244, 408, 418

Prerost, F.;., 38, 40, 129, 147, 164, 336, 408

Preuschoft, S., 3, 6, 128, 154, 155, 165, 166, 167, 408,417

Price-Greathouse, ;., 210, 416

Priest, R. F, 144, 367, 408

Prkachin, K. M., 274, 327, 397

Provine, R. R., 3, 5, 10, 73, 97, 113, 128, 129, 130,

131, 134, 147, 156, 157, 158, 167, 174, 175, 176,

184, 186, 408

Proyer, R. T., 348, 411

Puhlik-Doris, P., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265,

277, 279, 290, 300, 401

Purkey, W. W., 260, 261, 382

Quinter, V. E, 134, 188,382

Rackl, L., 311,408

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 116, 408

Rader, C., 160, 388

Ramachandran, V. S., 188, 408

Ramos,;., 129, 377

Rapp, A., 44, 45, 408

Raskin, V., 49, 65, 66, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 99,

114, 139, 140, 143, 374, 408, 410

Raudenbush, S. W., 296, 378

Ray, C., 222, 404

Raz, T., 325, 418

Redlich, F. C, 36, 37, 196, 398, 409

Reff, R. C., 281, 405

Regan, P. C., 134, 225, 414

Reid,;., 344, 387

Reis, H. T., 282, 298, 301, 303, 307, 376, 378,

409

Reiss, A. L., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403

Rice, E., 132, 381

RichmanJ., 336,409

Rim, Y., 287, 409

Ring, C, 162, 164,318,319,391

Ritchie, G., 63, 64, 72, 84, 85, 105, 106, 107, 108, 376,

409

Rizzolatti, G., 128, 409

Robillard,;, 240, 413

Robinson, D. S., 289, 379

Robinson, D. T., 120, 122, 149, 409

Robinson, G. F, 102, 393

Rockwell, S., 324, 420

Rodden, F. A., 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418

Roeckelein, ;. E., 6, 27, 31, 409

Rosen, D. H., 271,417

Rosenblatt, E., 245, 246, 247, 382, 384, 419

AUTHOR INDEX 443

Rosenheim, E, 409

Rosenheim, E., 344

Rosenwald, G. C, 38, 409

Ross, B. At., 250, 413

Ross,;. W. H., 197,397

Ross, S., 304, 399

Roter, D., 398, 411

Roter, D. L., 346, 398

Rothbart, M. K., 64, 66, 67, 68, 84, 85, 237, 242, 407,409

Rotondo, D. M., 383

Rotton, J., 272, 324, 330, 409

Routh, D. K., 69, 389

Rowe, D. C., 253, 409

RubienJ., 218, 377

Ruch, W., 8, 10, 20, 21, 38, 50, 51, 62, 73, 79, 92, 155,

156, 159, 161, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 192, 194,

195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,

209, 214, 215, 216, 218, 222, 223, 242, 254, 265,

270, 276, 315, 316, 325, 328, 348, 383, 386, 392,

395, 402, 409, 410, 411, 418, 420

Ruma, C., 164, 408

Rumelhart, D. E., 85,411

Rushton, C., 222, 404

Russ, G. S., 147, 392

Russell, J. A., 10, 114, 128,411

Rust,J., 144, 254, 299, 411, 418

Rutherford, K., 336, 411

Ryan, K. M., 141, 197,411

Sabin, E, 319, 407

Sadalla, E. K., 134, 394

Safer, M. A., 214, 398

Safranek, R., 274, 294, 411

Sala, E, 346, 411

Salais, D., 69, 84, 383

Salameh, W. A., 336, 339, 348, 388, 411

Sanavio, E., 288, 384

Sander, K., 184,411

Sanders, V. M., 317, 411

Sanderson, C. A., 282, 309, 411

Sanville,;. B., 42, 411

Saper, B., 140, 336, 341, 342, 412

Sarmany-Schuller, I., 274, 416

Saroglou, V., 202, 212, 213, 280, 300, 412

SayreJ., 120,289,412

Scambler, D. J., 252, 398, 412

Scariot, C, 212, 213, 280, 300, 412

Schachter, S., 59, 412

Schaefer, C., 270, 386, 404

Schaier, A. H., 264, 412

Schank, R. C., 86, 412

Scheich, H., 184,411

Scheier, M. E, 288, 289, 379

Schill, T., 274, 294, 411

Schmidt, S. R., 103, 104, 356, 412

Schopenhauer, A., 63

Schultz, N. W., 259, 379

Schultz, W., 182, 412

Schwartz, G. E., 160, 377

SchwartzJ. E., 316, 330, 388, 400

Schwartz, T., 84, 98, 99, 389

Schwarzwald, J., 324, 418

Schweitzer, K., 324, 420

Schwerdt, P., 170, 172, 374

Scodel, A., 196, 391

Scott, M. B., 110,413

Sechrest, L., 218, 395

Segrin, C, 298, 412

Seidler, A., 327, 380

Seligman, M. E. P., 28, 269, 412

Shalit, E, 319, 403

Shammi, P., 179, 264, 412

ShapiroJ. P., 125, 251, 252, 412

Sharkey, N. E., 95, 412

Shats, M., 272, 324, 409

Sheehy-Skeffington, A., 129, 388

Shepherd, R., 197, 274, 397

Sher, P. K, 3, 170, 185, 412

Sherman, L. W., 260, 261, 412, 417

Sherman, M., 304, 399

Shiota, M. N., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412

ShmidtJ. L., 328, 379

Shoji, S., 321, 392

Shultz, T. R., 64, 66, 67, 71, 84, 85, 91, 96, 106, 110,

231,232,240,241,242,413

Shurcliff, A, 61, 79, 413

Sica, C., 288, 384

Sigal, M., 272, 275, 388

Silberberg, A. R., 357, 378

Silverman, I. W., 231,399

Simon,;. M., 274, 413

Simons, C.J. R., 249, 413

Simpson,;. A., 5, 413

Singer, D. L., 39, 40, 50, 413

444 AUTHOR INDEX

Sinnott,;. D, 250, 413

Skarpness, L. R., 259, 379

Smeltzer, L. R, 361, 369, 385

Smith, C. E., 51, 197,419

Smith, J. E., 134,413

Smith,}. R., 249, 380

Smith, K. C. P., 75, 374

Smith, P. K., 126, 185, 413, 418

Smith, R., 38, 50, 385

Smith, R. E, 339, 357, 413

Smith, S. M., 138,418

Smith-Lovin, L., 120, 122, 149, 409

Smoski, M. J., 129, 130, 136, 156, 157, 160, 375, 413

SniderJ. G., 93,413

Snieder, H., 254, 380

Sohler, T. P, 37, 196, 409

Solaas, M. H., 259, 384

Somerfield, M. R., 295, 413

Spaulding, R. C., 19, 287, 386

Spector, T. D., 254, 380

Spencer, G., 140, 414

Spencer, H., 33, 58, 77, 414

Sperber, D., 99, 414

Spiegel, D., 196, 414

Spradley, J. P., 121,414

Sprecher, S., 134,225,414

Spurgeon, K. L., 365, 380

Srendi, B., 319, 403

Sroufe, L. A., 230, 237, 414

Staley, R. E., 88, 384

Staudinger, U. M., 28, 72, 374

Stayton, D. J., 249, 373

Stearns, F. R., 165, 414

Stepper, S., 270, 414

Stewart, M., 97, 414Stiller-Winkler, R., 318, 383

Stillion, J. M., 148,414

Stone, A. A., 283, 315, 404, 414

Strack, E, 270, 414

Strean, H. S., 336, 414

Strickland,;. E, 40, 70, 414

Stringfellow, A., 178,378

Strother, G. B., 195, 414

Struthers, A., 350, 414

Stuss, D. T., 179, 264, 412

Subkoviak, M. ;., 101,382

Suci, G.;., 93, 406

Sullivan, K., 246, 414

Suls, ;., 393

SulsJ. M., 17, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 75, 84, 85, 91, 96,

106, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 140, 181, 200,

390, 414

SultanJ, 284, 397

Sumners, A. D., 290, 414

Sundar, S. S, 324, 420

Surkis, A. A, 336, 415

Sutton-Smith, B., 248, 415

Svebak, S, 48, 79, 81, 160, 179, 180, 206, 207, 328,

329,330,415

SwainJ. E, 367, 408

Swanson, C, 145, 304, 390

Szabo, A., 7, 271, 415

Taal, W, 164, 406

Talbot, L. A., 274, 415

Tamblyn, D, 350, 415

TanJ, 135,399

Tan, S. A, 319,326,376

Tang, D, 134, 390

Tannen, D, 149, 415

Tannenbaum, P. H, 93, 406

Taylor, D, 209, 316, 381

Taylor, S. B, 209, 399

Tecucianu, F, 344, 409

TedeschiJ. T, 17, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122,

393

Tellegen, A, 255, 415

Tennen, H, 296, 415

Tepper, I, 324, 418

TerrionJ. L, 122, 125,415

Terry, R. L, 147, 415

Teshimovsky-Arditi, M, 324, 404

TeslowJ. L, 350, 354,416

Texhima, H, 319,326,393

Teyber, E, 341, 416

Thein, M. T, 144, 408

Thomas, C. A, 141, 197, 416

ThomasJ. W, 218, 391

Thomas, M. D, 350, 419

Thorelli, I. M, 50, 68, 84, 418

Thoresen, C.;, 360, 393

ThorsonJ. A, 209, 212, 223, 265, 274, 416

Tittler, B. I, 257, 408

Todt, D, 130, 158,395,417

Tollefson, D. L, 195, 199, 379

AUTHOR INDEX 445

Tomlinson-Keasey, C., 316, 330, 388, 400

Tonosaki, K., 320, 374

Torrance, E. P., 101, 416

Totten, M. C, 321, 328,384

Townsend, M. A., 356, 357, 416

Trappl, R., 105, 416

Traylor, G., 361,416

Treadwell, Y., 218, 416

Treffinger, D.J., 101, 376

Trembath, D. L., 134, 413

Trice, A. D., 210, 284, 416

Trick, L., 94, 416

Trost, M. R, 134,394

TuckerJ. S, 316, 330, 388, 400

Tugade, M. M., 16, 186,387

Turkheimer, E. N., 259, 384

Turnbull, C. M., 43, 416

Turner, R. G., 217, 416

UUchino, B. N., 315, 317, 322, 416

Uematsu, S, 170, 172, 374

UllianJ. A, 361,416

Ullmann, L. P., 38,51,416

Umberson, D., 316, 392

Urbach, S. L., 356, 402

Ursano, R. J., 289, 401

VVaid, J, 84, 95, 96, 97, 154, 187, 416, 417

Vaillant, G. E., 42, 417

Valdimarsdottir, H., 315, 414Van Dijk, J. G., 163, 164, 406

Van Giffen, K., 351, 353, 417

van Hooff, J. A., 3, 6, 9, 54, 128, 154, 155, 165, 166,

167, 408, 417

Van Thriel, C, 214, 215, 218, 410, 411

van Wormer, K., 290, 417

VanCleave, G., 69, 383

Vanoli, E. G., 337, 397

Vasey, G., 312,417

Velker, B., 325, 420

Ventis, W. L., 336, 339,417

Verguts, T, 218, 384

VettinJ, 130, 159,417

Vilaythong, A. P., 271, 417

Vmton, K. L., 122, 362, 417

von Cramon, D. Y., 184, 402

WWakshlagJ.J, 354, 417

Waldorf, V. A., 134,413

Walle, A. H., 118,417

Waltz, W, 323, 380

Wanzer, M. B., 352, 354, 417

Wapner, W, 178, 417

WardJ. R., 300, 302, 400, 417

Ware, A. P., 219, 220, 381

Warm, T.R., 251,252, 417

Warners-Kleverlaan, N., 261, 417

Watson, D., 328, 417

Watson, K. K., 183, 417

WeaverJ., 418, 420

Weaver,}. B., 156, 324,359

Webster, D. G., 162, 163, 387

Wegener, D. T, 138, 418

Weinberger, M. G., 136, 137, 399, 418

Weiner, E. S. C., 5, 413

WeintraubJ. K, 288, 379

Weir, K., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277,

279, 290, 300, 401

Weisenberg, M., 324, 325, 418

Weisfeld, G. E., 8, 185, 418

Weiss, R. L., 146, 300, 382

Wentzel, E. R., 143, 387

WestengardJ, 319, 376

Whalen, R. E., 327, 418

Wheeler, K.J., 250, 377

Wheeler, L, 59, 412

White, H., 148, 414

White, S, 272, 284, 326, 418

Whitney, I., 126, 418

WhittJ. K, 240, 244, 418

Wickberg, D., 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 192, 277, 418

Wicker, E W, 50, 68, 84, 140, 197, 218, 418

Wiggins, E. C, 113,377

Wiggins, S. L, 196, 391

Wilcox, K.J., 255, 415

Wild, B., 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418

Wilkens, P. C, 131,402

Williams, A. R., 103, 104, 356, 412

Williams, R. B., 327, 418

Williamson,;, 162, 163, 387

Willis, A. C, 140, 197, 418

Wilson, C. L, 172, 182, 388

Wilson, D. S, 3, 6, 10, 15, 28, 114, 128, 129, 131, 154,

156, 166, 167, 169, 184, 185, 186, 187, 389

446 AUTHOR INDEX

Wilson, D. W., 147, 418

Wilson, G. D, 196, 199, 253, 254, 404, 418

Wilson, W, 147, 418

Wimberly, S. R., 289, 382

Wmdmueller, G., 245, 419

Winner, E., 120, 178, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384, 391,

414, 419

Wmzelberg, A., 284, 418

Wittenberg, M. T, 301, 378

Witztum, E., 336, 341, 419

Wolever, M. E., 319, 321, 396

Wolfenstein, M., 236, 248, 419

Wolff, H. A., 51, 197,419

Wolpert, D. M., 175, 377

Wood, V, 248, 398

Woods, K., 49, 401

Worth, L. T, 138, 399

Wright, D. S., 250, 380

Wright, K. M., 289, 401

WunschJ. P., 230, 237, 414

Wyer, R. S, 7, 13, 14, 15, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87,

88, 91, 96, 98, 419

Yalisove, D., 240, 241, 244, 419

Yarnold, J. K., 199,419

Yasui, T, 320, 374

Yehuda, S., 319, 403

Yip,J. A, 301,349, 369, 419

Yokoyama, C., 171, 182, 393

Yong, Y. L., 3, 156, 157, 158, 408

Yoshikawa, E., 171, 182, 393

Yoshino, S., 320, 419

Young, A., 209, 316, 381

Young, R. C, 17, 55, 117, 124, 125, 126, 146, 151,

394

Yovetich, N. A., 284, 419

Yukl, G., 367, 419

251,

Zajdman, A., 117,419

Zeilig, G., 170, 419

Ziegler, V., 350,419

Zigler, E., 72, 243, 244, 250, 407, 419

Zillmann, D., 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 79, 140, 156, 197, 248,

251, 324, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 359, 378, 379,

395, 405, 417, 418, 419, 420

Zinkhan, G. M., 103, 388

Ziv, A., 41, 102, 118, 144, 218, 222, 299, 355,

420

Zvaigzne, M. T., 100, 407

Zwerling, L, 195, 420

Zweyer, K., 325, 420

Zysset, S., 184, 402

The PsychologyofHumor

An Integrative Approach

ELSEVIER

od A. Martin

Most of us laugh at funny things multiple times during a typical

day. Humor serves multiple purposes and though there is a

sizable and expanding research literature on the subject, the

research is spread through a variety of disciplines. Until now there

has been no systematic integration of that literature into a single

book. The Psychology of Humor reviews the literature, integrating

dispersed findings from across subdisciplines in psychology, as

well as related fields such as anthropology, biology, computer

science, linguistics, and sociology. The book begins by defining

humor, followed by a discussion of theories of humor, and then

analyzes research findings from the various subdisciplines in

psychology. Coverage includes the cognitive processes involved

in humor, as well as the effects of humor on cognition, the

neurobiology of humor, the social functions of humor, individual

differences in personality and humor, the development of humor

understanding and use over the lifespan, the association of

humor with both physical and mental health, and applications of

humor use in psychotherapy, education, and the workplace.

ISBN-13: 17fl-D-lE-37ESbM-bISBN-ID: a-12-3725bi4-X

ACADEMIC PRESSAn imprint of Elsevier

books.elsevier.com9 780123 725646

The psychology of humor : an integrative approach - Internet ...

Documents